Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Do you think archaeology is a science?

Options
  • 26-11-2009 7:54am
    #1
    Nebit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 310 ✭✭


    I personally believe that archaeology is indeed a science because you have various scientific techniques you need to know and do as an archaeologist. These range both on field and off.
    We also look into how people lived in the past and the evolution of culture throughout time, again using specific techniques and recording the data in specially laid out journals.
    However there are those who say archaeology cannot be a science because once a site is excavated it is destroyed.

    Whats your opinions?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    gravensteen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35 ✭gravensteen


    I would say it's more of an arts subject than a science, simply because it's not emotionally detached.

    And alot of archaeologists don't believe in truth.


  • Options
    #3
    Azelfafage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 125 ✭✭Azelfafage


    In the sense that "science" means "knowledge" we can say that Archeology is a science.

    .


  • Options
    #4
    gravensteen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35 ✭gravensteen


    But it's not absolute knowledge. It's theorising. It doesn't prove, it suggests.
    Wouldn't you say that's more in line with an arts subjcet?


  • Options
    #5
    Azelfafage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 125 ✭✭Azelfafage


    gravensteen wrote: »
    But it's not absolute knowledge. It's theorising. It doesn't prove, it suggests.
    Wouldn't you say that's more in line with an arts subjcet?

    Not really.

    The pyramids exist...they should be studied scientifically.

    The notion that the arts and sciences seperate subject is a recent cultural invention.

    You can see supreme mathematical invention in the music of Mozart and Bach.

    Mozart and Bach would be building the Large Hadron Collider if they were alive today.

    .


  • Options
    #6
    gravensteen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35 ✭gravensteen


    Be that as it may, the pyramids existance doesn't automatically make certain their purpose for doing so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Lemondrop kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Lemondrop kid


    Oops.
    Visions of hippy archies got the better of me. sorry:)


  • Options
    #8
    gravensteen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35 ✭gravensteen


    Wow. You're hilarious, you are.


  • Options
    #9
    Riamfada
    Registered Users Posts: 10,246 ✭✭✭✭Riamfada


    We are all hilarious now play nice and alot of a people I know treat it like playtime in the mud.


  • Options
    #10
    gravensteen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35 ✭gravensteen


    post-editing is confusing.


  • Options
    #11
    Dublin_Gunner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    Nebit wrote: »
    However there are those who say archaeology cannot be a science because once a site is excavated it is destroyed.

    Whats your opinions?

    There are many cases in theoretical physics where once the object to be observed is indeed observed, it in destroyed (or at least does not exist as it did before).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    col_nicholson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 170 ✭✭col_nicholson


    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055549395
    ....not a science.


  • Options
    #13
    gravensteen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35 ✭gravensteen


    Agree!


  • Options
    #14
    Nebit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 310 ✭✭Nebit


    col_nicholson wrote: »
    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055549395
    ....not a science.

    thanks for the link didn't realise there was another thread about it.
    However i think i will stand by the fact that archaeology is a science due for the reasons i stated in my OP, but also the fact that all sciences are in itself subjective in nature and also that nothing is Fact as is can be later disproven.
    Thanks for all the posts!


  • Options
    #15
    Bog Butter
    Registered Users Posts: 757 ✭✭✭Bog Butter


    Nebit wrote: »
    thanks for the link didn't realise there was another thread about it.
    However i think i will stand by the fact that archaeology is a science due for the reasons i stated in my OP, but also the fact that all sciences are in itself subjective in nature and also that nothing is Fact as is can be later disproven.
    Thanks for all the posts!

    Agreed. The techniques we use are scientific. The conclusions are not always scientific fact but they don't have to be. Go have a look at the weather section (also in science) and read the latest threads there and then ask yourself is Meteorology a science. When Met Eireann predict the weather they use scientific data but their conclusions (i.e the weather forcast) are often inaccurate. Does that mean meteorology is not a science??


Advertisement