On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, geoff carver wrote:
> when someone talks about "reproducibility" as being a criterion for something
> being science or not (as in "archaeology is not a science because you can only
> excavate the site once", and as opposed to popper and his falsifiability), just
> what is that school-of-thought/argument called? neo-positivist? neo-rationalist?
>
> geoff carver
> http://home.t-online.de/home/gcarver/
> [log in to unmask]
My argument's on this are that the "reproducibility" argument is applied
too strictly to archaeology. It is impossible to any field to do the "same
experiment" again. Let us say you are trying to determine the boiling
point of some substance "x". After you determine its boiling point once,
you will often run multiple tests. The container used for heating the
substance "x" may not be the same. Some of substance "x" will be lost in
the experiment, necessitating the addition of more of this substance (is
it going to have the exact same constitution as the original batch of
substance "x"). Even the re-used substance "x" may have undergone slight
chemical changes in the boiling process.
If we are to imagine another researcher conducting the same experiment,
the differences are going to be greater. The other researcher will be
using different containers (different shape, different size) and possibly
a different type of heat source.
In replicating an experiment, a chemist or physicist is not repeating the
same experiment, but trying to duplicate that experiment by minimizing the
differences between the two experiments.
In ecology, the multiple tests used in an experiment are comprised
of multiple observations of behavior (or in the case of botanically
oriented studies), the examination of multiple transects.
Similarly in geology, their research is composed of multiple observations
of similar phenomenon (we really can't replicate a volcanic eruption).
In archaeology, our replicability is based upon repeated observations of
similar phenomenon. We use multiple transects in doing settlement studies.
Each excavated unit can be considered an observation. Finding certain
findings in a single test unit at site B may lead a researcher to posit
the implications of those findings. Repeated excavations at site B (or
other sites in the region) that come up with similar findings reinforce
the initial hypothesis. If no other excavations produce similar findings,
then an alternative explanation must be found. (In saying this, the units
must be into similar surface features, an excavation into a hearth will be
expected to produce difference results versus an experiment into a
midden).
Admittedly, in archaeology, the number of variables that we cannot control
are much greater than they are in chemistry, but there has been some
attempt to standardize excavation strategies over the years.
And I also admit that there are researchers who make a great deal out of
single artifacts found in a single excavation. In my opinion,
archaeologists who do this, are doing poor science (as in any field, there
are good researchers and poor researchers).
Jeff Baker
(someone who is convinced that archaeology should be approached as a
science)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|