since when?

I understand there is a body of knowledge gained thru scholarly research, living, viable theories to explain what is observed. and a group of practitioners who apply sound principles to this field.


medicine isn't 100% reliable in the application of its body of knowledge, is it therefore Not science?


Pray tell, what is a reasonable definition of 'science' then?

Is archaeology a science?
https://books.google.com/books?id=05msBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

P. 140

>>IS ARCHAEOLOGY A SCIENCE?

>>The adoption of scientific techniques and the overlap between archaeology and biology in the study of human origins led some archaeologists to claim that archaeology was now a science. This would have advantages for university departments since science enjoys higher status and better funding than the humanities. However, the use of scientific techniques in itself does not make a subject a science. To be accepted as science, archaeology would have to demonstrate that it is following the principles of empirical methods with a view to establishing “law,” or “middle range theory” as it is often called. Although many research archaeologist have adopted the scientific model of generating a hypothesis and then testing, it is difficult for archaeologists to form law-like generalisations from their findings. While the relationships explored by scientists in laboratory experiments can be tested repeatedly under controlled conditions, archaeologists investigate unique events from the past and deal with material which, once removed from its context, can never be re-excavated. However, many people working in archaeology are scientists and in their lab-work are applying scientific methods, so there is certainly archeological science.

The difference between "archaeology" and "archaeological science" is an important one.

And now I recall something an Egyptology professor once said about archaeology. She said it was about "destruction," and it's clear to me now what she meant by that statement. Once artifacts are excavated, we are dependent on the "context" in which they were uncovered, and the "interpretations" offered.

Science is about reproducibility, honest.

Obviously your professor hadn't heard of the many newer scientific techniques that do NOT destroy finds or wreck context.

Ground radar, soil resistance, etc.

This link shows how scientific archaeology dealt with a stunning find in York of 30 people who had been decapitated and their heads put into the grave in a way to show them maximum disrespect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rhLlzmUTkc

/insert big Cabbie speech about black-and-whte-thinking

No, she probably hadn't, given that this was around 20 years ago...

Those modern "excavation techniques" sound wonderful, but items are still "removed* from the ground," and "context" is essentially an "abstract account" consisting of a "reconstruction" of what was unearthed.

*I suppose we're going to see museums having "virtual displays" at some point (the Internet,too), but that reminds me of an Asimov science fiction novel I read 40 years ago. Or perhaps something like the King Tut exhibit at the Luxor in Las Vegas...

Here, a little "style technique" for your journalism manual: There's "archaeology," and there's "archaeological science."

#I'll even stand for fact-checking from Richard on this one

Seriously, I've got enough "Internet gunfights" going on right now. I simply repeated what "Richard the Bad" stated here years ago.

"Archaeology is a discipline that uses science."

That's a subtle but very real distinction, and while Richard and I may duke it out here in other areas, I guarantee you he'll say the same thing.

http://www.undergraduatelibrary.org/system/files/3323.pdf

>>However modern archaeology is very different from those early beginnings of over 150 years ago, and the convention of ‘sciences’ and ‘humanities’ needs to be evaluated in the modern sense too.

>>Even if archaeological excavations could be repeatable it would not be surprising if the results from two different archaeologists were incompatible or at least had vastly different foci, similar to ethnographic process and product- indeed the ethnographer, or archaeologist, is “part of the data” (Agar 2001: 4859). In this way it is problematic to ascribe archaeology as a purely ‘scientific’ subject. The temptation for many is to bring to archaeology same control and precision apparent in the physical or biological sciences, and indeed some aspects of human life and behaviour are subject to general law-like relations similar to those of the natural sciences, however in attempting to explain human beings in these terms a very incomplete picture is formed, lacking the “qualities of conscious life” that are so important to a holistic understanding of human experience and behaviour both present and past (Pepper 1961: 152, 153-4).

>>Archaeology increasingly employs scientifically developed methods, especially for dating artefacts but also to access information about their chemical composition and the DNA of deceased individuals. This ‘archaeological science’ has revolutionised the discipline since the 1950’s when radiocarbon dating brought a new certainty to archaeological dating allowing an absolute chronology to be achieved (Daniel 1981: 181). A further recent complication has been the fragmentation of archaeological specialisations, with individuals pursuing increasingly distinct sub-disciplines such as archaeometry (Watchman 2001: 626), bioarchaeology (Larsen 2001: 1187), geoarchaeology (Weisler 2001: 6162), zooarchaeology (Grayson 2001: 16691) and other offspring of interdisciplinary collaboration.

Your guarantee's calling and election is sure.

And double thanks for the laugh. Things are little grim right now... Nothing serious, just stressful.

And now we get to demonstrate how "recovered" we are by showing others how it's also possible to disagree and yet remain civil and friendly...

Turning over a new leaf, then?

No more calling people names?

Per the folks' old family attorney: "In a slander case, the truth is a 100% defense."

I'll offer that up for any "name calling" I indulged in. Don't let yourself consider the possibility it might be accurate; best you remain in denial... Might have to become a grown-up and allow others to have their own views and perspectives otherwise...

And I see from your post below you stuck in your "for what it's worth" view that the distinctions--between archaeology and archaeological science, I believe--are "arbitrary."

Given that you're not a scientist, I'd say your "fwiw views" aren't worth a thing, period. Except perhaps as a case study in narcissism...

You can't avoid insulting those who disagree with you, can you?


> Given that you're not a scientist, I'd say your
> "fwiw views" aren't worth a thing, period.

Are you a scientist, Cabbie, such that you can accurately judge my statements? I mean, along with your skills in school teaching, archaeology, genetics, historiography, and psychology, is the history of science among your myriad areas of intellectual expertise?


> I'll offer that up for any "name calling" I
> indulged in. Don't let yourself consider the
> possibility it might be accurate; best you remain
> in denial. . . as a case study in narcissism...

Have you ever met a real psychologist who would diagnose someone over the internet? Of course not.

But then you aren't a real psychologist, are you. You have no degrees in psychology. You started the process of becoming a Certified Addiction Counselor (CAC) and completed the level 1 training course, which you describe as a "graduate program" but which in fact is open to anyone who graduated from high school and includes no formal education in psychology. Nor did you finish the required clinical work necessary to become a CAC. So you did a bit of post-high school work in a related field, nothing more.

I know you are going to ask that this post be deleted. Why the admins allow you--a psychological dilettente--to call Nightingale, Dave the Atheist, Richard the Bad, me and others "narcissists" and don't remove those posts is baffling. But you are special, right?

Wrong. There are probably dozens of people on RfM with more understanding of psychology than you, people with the discretion not to pretend to diagnose others.

Get back in your cab, Walter Mitty, and retreat into your imagination. There you are a true polymath.



https://www.naadac.org/ncac-i



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2018 03:48AM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can't avoid insulting those who disagree with
> you, can you?
>
>
> > Given that you're not a scientist, I'd say your
> > "fwiw views" aren't worth a thing, period.
>
> Are you a scientist, Cabbie, such that you can
> accurately judge my statements? I mean, along
> with your skills in school teaching, archaeology,
> genetics, historiography, and psychology, is the
> history of science among your myriad areas of
> intellectual expertise?
>
>
> > I'll offer that up for any "name calling" I
> > indulged in. Don't let yourself consider the
> > possibility it might be accurate; best you
> remain
> > in denial. . . as a case study in narcissism...
>
> Have you ever met a real psychologist who would
> diagnose someone over the internet? Of course
> not.
>
> But then you aren't a real psychologist, are you.
> You have no degrees in psychology. You started
> the process of becoming a Certified Addiction
> Counselor (CAC) and completed the level 1 training
> course, which you describe as a "graduate program"
> but which in fact is open to anyone who graduated
> from high school and includes no formal education
> in psychology. Nor did you finish the required
> clinical work necessary to become a CAC. So you
> did a bit of post-high school work in a related
> field, nothing more.
>
> I know you are going to ask that this post be
> deleted. Why the admins allow you--a
> psychological dilettente--to call Nightingale,
> Dave the Atheist, Richard the Bad, me and others
> "narcissists" and don't remove those posts is
> baffling. But you are special, right?
>
> Wrong. There are probably dozens of people on RfM
> with more understanding of psychology than you,
> people with the discretion not to pretend to
> diagnose others.
>
> Get back in your cab, Walter Mitty, and retreat
> into your imagination. There you are a true
> polymath.
>
>
>
> https://www.naadac.org/ncac-i

Exactly! Having had some (very negative) experience with this type of people, it is important to understand many of them consider high seniority in the Alcoholics Anonymous religion to trump any education.

And yes, I have personally witnessed the old guys call who got the new young girls sentenced to AA for DUIs.

deleted



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2018 03:59AM by Lot's Wife.

Take care. I hope the grim times are ephemeral.

Yeah, I'm with Cabbie on this one. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_science

The article you linked to has a paragraph close to the top that states:

Archaeological science can be divided into the following areas:

- physical and chemical dating methods which provide archaeologists with absolute and relative chronologies

- artifact studies

- environmental approaches which provide information on past landscapes, climates, flora, and fauna; as well as the diet, nutrition, health, and pathology of people

- mathematical methods for data treatment (including computer-based methods)

- remote-sensing and geophysical-survey techniques for buried features

- conservation sciences, involving the study of decay processes and the development of new methods of conservation

- Techniques such as lithic analysis, archaeometallurgy, paleoethnobotany, palynology and zooarchaeology also form sub-disciplines of archaeological science.

---

I know you have to be careful to verify info from Wiki but am I missing something here? The article itself refers to "archaeological science".

The wiki page makes a clear distinction between archaeometry (archaeological science, what the page describes) and archaeology as a whole.

The premise is that archaeometry is a tool used in archaeology, which has influenced it greatly since the 1950's or so, but is only part of archaeology.

Which agrees with the Cabbie's description of archaeology as a "discipline that uses science."

:)

Sometimes we get caught up in the details and we loose site of the goals. Archaeology at its core is a branch of anthropology. The whole goal is to understand and discover the past, particularly the past that is unrecorded. So there are many things that are useful like biology, geology, chemistry, physics. But archaeology itself is not a scientific discipline.

Archaeology is a scientific field of study by virtue of its definition alone:


Web results
Archaeology | Definition of Archaeology by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/archaeology
1 : the scientific study of material remains (such as tools, pottery, jewelry, stone walls, and monuments) of past human life and activities. 2 : remains of the culture of a people : antiquities the archaeology of the Incas.

Wow, so do I get to call a Dr a scientist now?

I'll skip over all of the technical stuff. It's not over my head but I duck.

Archaeology is a science in the same way that history is a science. The term social science isn't supposed to be a way to denigrate the disciple it is a way of describing it's goals.

jacob,
I honestly don't consider accurate use of the term "social science" to be denigration. But it does reflect differences in methodologies and approaches.

Similar to archaeology, the discipline of History involves the use of scientific tools...but a large part of it is also opinion and interpretation as opposed to a "hard" science where it's all about the facts. A good historian may provide an opinion on some historical figure's motivations, for example -- that may or may not be factual, and with no way to tell if they're factual or not (since the person is long dead).

I don't see that as a denigration of history, but it does move it away from "hard" science.

Archaeology has similar elements, where the practitioner makes guesses about gaps in the in-the-ground-record. Those guesses may reflect the factual past or they may not, and in many cases there's no way to ever verify which they are. I don't think that means that archaeologists shouldn't make guesses/estimates -- I just think we need to recognize the limitations of the field, and accept that there are parts of the past we'll never know with certainty.

Yep, spot on.

When I was a teenager I really loved historical fiction. I could read for hours. There was a particular book that I don't remember the name or author which I found mesmerizing. It was about a settlement on the Black Sea and was set at 10,000 BCE. I loved it. I'm grateful to the archaeologists who contributed to creating a reliable backdrop for such a wonderful story.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep, spot on.
>
> When I was a teenager I really loved historical
> fiction.

Me too!
Always interesting to consider what would might have happened but didn't...:)

<<Those guesses may reflect the factual past or they may not, and in many cases there's no way to ever verify which they are.>>

An understatement if there ever was one. You should go drinking with a bunch of Rock Art specialists.

richardthebad (not logged in) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An understatement if there ever was one. You
> should go drinking with a bunch of Rock Art
> specialists.

Now *that* sounds like a good time...! :)

It is!

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, so do I get to call a Dr a scientist now?
>
> I'll skip over all of the technical stuff. It's
> not over my head but I duck.
>
> Archaeology is a science in the same way that
> history is a science. The term social science
> isn't supposed to be a way to denigrate the
> disciple it is a way of describing it's goals.


Yeah, 'cos like, he is a Doctor of Medical Science?

Accccctualllly,

This is a settled debate. A practitioner is a practitioner and a researcher is a researcher and a practitioner who researches is a unicorn.

is there Anyone that can give an answer 'with authority' that we can rely on?

From Yale University's description of Archaeology the following:

"ARCHAEOLOGY PROGRAMS
Yale’s Council on Archaeological Studies believes that archaeology is a mingling of science, theory, and comparative prehistories and histories, and that the best way to teach archaeology is by exposing our students to as many different research problems, fieldwork styles, and prehistoric regions as possible.
Our students are exposed to the research styles of our contributing departments — Anthropology, Classics and Classical Civilizations, Geology and Geophysics, History, History of Art, Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations (including Egyptology), Religious Studies, and the Yale University Art Gallery and Peabody Museum of Natural History, and at the same time receive a solid grounding in theory and analytical sciences common to all. We are fortunate to attract some of the brightest minds in the future of the field yet maintain an atmosphere wherein students receive personal attention from professors."

A foundation in sciences is a prerequisite to a degree in Archaeology by universities and colleges because it does involve science to some degree, as well as other disciplines.

https://archaeology.yale.edu/academics

As someone who understands language better than any of us once said, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

"Scientific study of remains, antiquities . . ."

In this case, the word scientific is used as an adjective to describe the word study which is the noun here and the primary definition of archeology. It is a study which uses science at times. If it were a hard science the definition would say that archeology is "the science of antiquities and remains" and not scientific study. But no one I can find who has credentials is saying that.

Just because something uses scientific principles or requires an understanding of science to "some degree" does not make the study of archeology a hard science. Just because I make cookies sometimes does not make me a baker. Being a baker is more than following the toll house recipe.

Back in the day, if you worked on a really large Archaeological excavation, they would usually make a "dig T-shirt" for all the Archaeologists. My favorite one, that I wish I still had, from the early '80's read:

"Archaeology. Dangerously close to science."

Love that slogan. Good one!

It's fun splitting hairs here, but I do love archeology and have immense respect for the whole deal. And my favorite part of archeology is that it is no friend of the Mormon church. Thorn in its side actually.

That’s funny.

So now we endure a whole thread, back and forth, re the so-called "science" of archaeology.

And in all of this display of brains we find no reference to the total vacuum of scientific evidence proving the historicity of Mormon's book.

You lads and lasses ought to spend your typing time on topics like: why can't we find horses or coins in Nephite jungles.

It may improve the mission of the forum if we'd leave off this endless "scientific" academic babble.

I remember back to the first Exmormon Conference I attended where Simon Southerton spoke of how he reviewed the DNA research (which was just seeing the light of day at the time) about Native American origins and says he "literally went to bed a Mormon and woke up a non-Mormon." He was a bishop at the time...

Once people "discover Mormonism is a fraud" (I did myself in the late 1960's, but I'd never been baptized though all my siblings were in our "Jack Mormon Family"), there's a big void, and stuff like this does, I believe, help fill that void.

My maternal grandfather, who did a mission to New Zealand in the 1920's, described his losing his faith as "going through hell." He'd been "baptizing Maoris," and he would see some join the church and others not and families were split up. That bothered him horribly, and when he came home, he married my grandmother and "led her out of the church." My great-grandfather characterized him as a "snake in the grass," honest.

Similarly, my father was very much a believer until he entered a service academy in the 1950's. He wound up livid when he concluded church leaders had "lied to him."

Finally, the BOM claims to be a history of people who migrated to the New World from the Middle East. Actual evidence of the real origins of Native Americans serves as a powerful counterweight to that myth.

And seriously, nobody is forcing you to read these threads...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2018 10:48PM by SL Cabbie.

elderpopejoy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And in all of this display of brains we find no
> reference to the total vacuum of scientific
> evidence proving the historicity of Mormon's
> book.

Actually, someone mentioned it right above you, up there ^.

> You lads and lasses ought to spend your typing
> time on topics like: why can't we find horses or
> coins in Nephite jungles.

I'll pass on your uninformed suggestion as to how I should spend my time, thanks.

> It may improve the mission of the forum if we'd
> leave off this endless "scientific" academic
> babble.

Or it may not. Given the number of contributions to this thread, all of which addressed the topic except yours, I'd say it's a safe bet that it was found interesting by a large number of forum visitors. Except you, apparently. Oh, well.

"So now we endure a whole thread, back and forth, re the so-called "science" of archaeology."

"And in all of this display of brains we find no reference to the total vacuum of scientific evidence proving the historicity of Mormon's book."

Mormon promoted Book of Mormon pseudo-archaeology is science-denial based.

Maybe this reveals my ignorance but the utilization of science in archeology is such that the delineation between it and ‘archeological science’ seems almost arbitrary, so as to render the debate almost semantical.

I understand the importance (in a general sense) of fine distinctions especially in specific areas of science, but this is a discussion about a whole body of knowledge, work, theory, etc.

Do the distinctions ultimately merit some new meaning other than how it might be classified or reviewed in academia? Does it give less authority to those who have expertise in said fields?

I’m genuinely curious now. What are the stakes, given the difference(s)?

My view, fwiw, is that the distinctions are arbitrary.

Above Hie used the word "hard." I think that is useful. We could line up all the academic fields from "hard" to "soft," with physics on the hard end and maybe language or literature on the soft.

Say "science" occupies the left-hand side of the spectrum. If we focus on that, physics or chemistry might define the extreme with biology further towards "soft" on the right and archaeology a bit "softer" still, possibly in the non-science half. Even that taxonomy, though, would obscure important details because, for instance, some archaeologists and biologists would use more "hard" science than others.

There may also be some confusion on the "hard" end, for theoretical physics is far beyond what one can test today or perhaps ever. I'm told, for instance, that at Oxford they have a major in Physics and Philosophy because the two fields are intimately related. So it may be that in math and physics and perhaps some other "hard" sciences" there are subcategories, some of which are "soft" science--or at least related to non-science fields.

Is this a practice run for a debate about whether Pluto is a planet?

Now I'm going to have to ask my supervisor if what I'm doing is science, geology, or geological science. I guess it depends on what I'm doing during a particular phase of a study.

Whatever, my degrees say BS, MS and PhD - the S may or may not be Science.

You are doing grad work in archaeology?

I'm jealous. That seems like a great career.

Professional geologist. Retiring soon, but it's been an interesting 27 years.

But...since rocks are hard, isn't geology by default a "hard science?"

<grin>

There's a bad joke in there about BYUB just waiting to be told.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2018 04:38PM by Lot's Wife.

Yes, I thought you were older than a college or grad student. But geology is another of those very interesting subjects!

This discussion about what academic disciplines are rightfully called “science” and which are not strikes me as ludicrous. Fundamentally, *all* science is about the accumulation of data and making inferences from that data. Sometimes such inferences are presented as “theories” or explanations of the data, perhaps in the form of some proposed natural law, and at other times they are simply conclusions of fact drawn from the data. Of course, the data itself, and the inferences drawn from such data are always subject to scrutiny and criticism. This is true in *all* academic disciplines claimed to be “science,” including physics. In short, no scientific discipline is immune from criticism as related to both data and inferences from such data. Being subject to criticism is not to disqualify a project as being scientific. Notwithstanding, we might ask whether some academic disciplines more “scientific” than others? The answer to that question is NO! Why?

In every academic discipline called “science” the goal is to accumulate reliable data, and make sound inferences from that data. As long as it is possible to accomplish both of these goals the activity is legitimately “scientific.” Specifically, in archeology it is possible to accumulate data, and make sound inferences from that data. As a trivial example, if a dig uncovers a clay bowl, or a molded obsidian tool, one can conclude that the community being studied had the sophistication to use such artifacts. Obviously, conclusions about a community’s religion, or its metaphysical beliefs, based upon artifacts is more problematic.

What really matters when evaluating scientific merit is the particular conclusions drawn from a particular set of data within the context of a particular research program. There are examples of over-reaching in virtually all scientific disciplines; i.e. where speculative conclusions over-determine the data. This is true in physics, chemistry, biology, archeology, anthropology, psychology, etc. In physics—the hardest of the “hard” sciences—the most prominent research program today is still so-called “string theory,” which is almost entirely speculative, and based principally on mathematical models. On the other hand, a project in social psychology—perhaps the softest of the “soft” sciences—can accumulate objective data by way of interviews or surveys, and generate sound statistical conclusions from that data.

Even when a scientific research program, or particular project, over-reaches in its conclusions, such speculations are not worthless, or disqualifying as science. Such speculations drive science—even when there is no hope for immediate verification or replication. What is dangerous is when such speculative conclusions are masqueraded as scientific fact, or when the soundness of some conclusion is itself overstated. This happens in all scientific disciplines, but, admittedly, most often in the social sciences where there is a built in motivation to arrive at striking conclusions that drive social policy (and research funding). But that just means that some academic disciplines need to be more careful simply by the nature of the data involved.

In short, it is ridiculous to even attempt to cast a broad net of credibility around various scientific disciplines, using terms like “soft” or “hard.” It is even more absurd to suggest that archeology is not science, which is simply a false statement—regardless of who makes such a statement.

Well said.

I have accumulated the data from this thread and am making the inference that sometimes ludicrous* discussions are the most fun, which, I would say a lot of posters were having. Having a hard time as seeing this thread as very serious but maybe that is just me.





* See also, ridiculous.

According to this standard, Henry, comparative literature is a science. History is a science. Theology is a science.

It is to avoid such silliness that a graduated scale is helpful.

Yeah.

Reminds me of the old days when art was just art--painting,sculpture etc. Then everyone began to claim their discipline was an art. Psychology, cooking, teaching. Hell, my mechanic has been referred to as an artist and not for the way he drizzles motor oil over the floor mats.

Everyone wants to elevate their status by changing the meaning of words. It bugged me because I make my living as an artist, like actually painting and sculpting. But . . . whatever.

Freud wrote about it.

He called it "physics envy."

Yes.

And I will point out that "physics envy" has produced a lot of nonsense, for example Behaviorism, the implications of which still affect and distort Psychology. The social sciences think they have to be like physics, which is one reason you find so many bogus social science "studies" that seemingly "as a rule" throw in statistical and modeling "data" that have little to do with the study at hand, and generate weak inferences that are then deemed to be apologetically "scientific."

If an academic discipline inherently involves limitations on the scope and validity of its conclusions, and a high degree of speculation, I say just own it, and provide as many interesting ideas and theories from the data as possible, even if they only *might* be true.

According to this standard, Henry, comparative literature is a science. History is a science. Theology is a science.

COMMENT: Well, we can get into semantics here, and my definition is admittedly inclusive. If someone wants to define "science" in a more limited sense in some given context, e.g. as involving the nature of physical reality, whatever, fine; so long as they do not use such a definition in a pejorative way to attack the per se legitimacy of other disciplines. Now, some activities, like astrology, involve data and inferences too, but in that case the proposed conclusions cannot be inferred from the data in the most basic, causal or statistical way.

In my view, whether you call it "science" or not, all academic disciplines should be judged based upon the specific data and inferences that are being made in the context of the "study" or research project in which it is presented. Distinctions between "science" and "non-science" are not helpful in this regard, and should not be used as an attack on an entire academic discipline. Even theology, where "data" and "inferences" are extremely loose, sound and thoughtful inferences (however speculative) are still possible. (though rare in my view.) For example, a theologian might point to the "fine-tuning" of the universe, data that is not disputed, and infer intelligent design. Such an inference might be false, or questionable, or the data might be subject to a better explanation, but the fact is that the conclusion does inductively, but not conclusively, follow from the premises. It is fair to infer that complexity of a given sort implies design or teleology. That is why people like Richard Dawkins readily admit that biological complexity "appears" to be designed, and go to great pains to argue that it wasn't.
_____________________________________

It is to avoid such silliness that a graduated scale is helpful.

COMMENT: I disagree. For me, any claim or suggestion that one academic discipline is inherently more legitimate, or more "scientific" (in my sense) than another, is bogus. I have read theological arguments that are more compelling than some arguments in theoretical physics. It is at the level of specific arguments--data and inferences--where the rubber meets the road.

Henry Bemis Wrote:


> For me, any claim or
> suggestion that one academic discipline is
> inherently more legitimate, or more "scientific"
> (in my sense) than another, is bogus.

You are misinterpreting me. "Scientific," to me, means the degree to which the use of data and hypotheses and math work. There are some fields where they work really well, others where they are useful tools, still others in which other disciplines are required. As someone who has studied and worked in fields that are in the gray area, I do not in any way think describing things as more or less scientific implies a judgment about legitimacy.

Physics is different from archaeology, which is different from economics, which is different than comp lit. One of the ways they differ is in the utility of math and scientific method. I want to capture that difference via a spectrum.

But that does not entail a value judgment about the disciplines themselves.

You are misinterpreting me. "Scientific," to me, means the degree to which the use of data and hypotheses and math work.

COMMENT: What do you mean by "work?" If you mean the ability to generate truth, then I would say that the data and mathematical models in physics can be just as speculative as they are in the so-called soft sciences. Moreover, mathematics per se, is not a final test of what "works" in the sense of truth determination. Lots of theories are mathematically consistent and elegant, but that does not mean that they are true.

_____________________________________

There are some fields where they work really well, others where they are useful tools, still others in which other disciplines are required.

COMMENT: I would suggest that this comment is true, not on the level of "fields," but on the level of specific research projects. Mathematics, for example, has application in virtually all modern academic fields deemed to be "scientific," including archeology, and, I dare say, literary analysis.
__________________________________________

As someone who has studied and worked in fields that are in the gray area, I do not in any way think describing things as more or less scientific implies a judgment about legitimacy.

COMMENT: Good. But when you suggest that what "works" means "what generates truth," it seems that legitimacy is implied. If you mean by "what works" what advances a particular research program, then, O.K. But, that is my point! That is the level of importance, not the level of "field."
___________________________________________

Physics is different from archaeology, which is different from economics, which is different than comp lit. One of the ways they differ is in the utility of math and scientific method. I want to capture that difference via a spectrum.

COMMENT: They are different. Period. As such, they have different limitations, different uses for mathematics, different in their ability to obtain certainty, etc. But these differences exist within academic disciplines as well. In short, different issues, problems, etc. involve different methodology and different levels of certainty. If you want to suggest that the term "science" is useful in distinguishing such disciplines, then tell me where the line is to be drawn.
_____________________________________________

But that does not entail a value judgment about the disciplines themselves.

COMMENT: O.K. But this post was definitely about a value judgment stating that archeology was not a science. Moreover, in most cases where some academic discipline is deemed "non-scientific" or "unscientific" a value judgment is clearly implied.

I think you are wrong to infer that "scientific" means "truthful" or "key to discovering truth." It can mean that, but any serious examination leads to different results.

Also, if you reread what I wrote when I proposed the "hard" versus "soft" terminology, I explicitly said that "soft" would apply to certain categories of inquiry in physics and math as well as the "softer" disciplines of history, language, etc. So it seems to me that you and I are on the same page other than the fact that I do not mean "soft" as a pejorative.

This is somewhat off topic, but I believe music and art are avenues for the pursuit of truth. I consider those "soft" but essential to the best in human civilization. So I am hardly going to follow those who use "scientific" as a synonym for rigorous, or intellectual, or accurate.

WOW!

Scientifically, by the numbers, this thread has the most comments / posts so far in my history!

Thanks to All!!

And since you used math to figure that out, it's also a hard science! WTG! :)

I just want to push GNPE's total over 60.