Rant: The “science problem” in archaeology. I am dismayed about the continuing low level of understanding of science among archaeologists. This was set off by reading Lars Fogelin’s nice open access theory book, which is marred by an incredibly bad conception of science 1/

Otherwise, I like this book (so far).
https://www.academia.edu/40368859/An_Unauthorized_Companion_To_American_Archaeological_Theory_PDF So, what is the problem with Fogelin’s view of science? 2/

Here I am just reviewing points made in my 2017 paper in Antiquity:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/social-science-and-archaeological-enquiry/EA1F4587647C3693958594BA889A19DC 3/

Science is an epistemology! It is a way of investigating the world, a way of generating observations and data about things, of explaining the world. It is not a method narrowly conceived. If an archaeologist uses C14 dating, that does not make the research scientific. 4/

Bayesian calibration of C14 dates, X-ray diffusion, phytolith analysis, constrained machine learning methods. All of these ‘scientific” methods can be used with a non-scientific epistemology (what some call “archaeological science”). 5/

Science involves testing, it (usually) involves quantification and sampling, it is (often) generalizing and explanatory. It is an EPISTEMOLOGY! It does not necessarily involve laws or experiments. I should not have to say these things in 2021. 6/

Fogelin says that archaeology involves both scientific and humanistic research. OK, no argument there. Both are important (OK, for some purposes this makes sense). So, what determines whether an archaeologist uses science or humanities? Not the research question. 7/

“The nature of the data should determine it” (Fogelin, p. 60). Huh ?????? If you want to study residues in a pot that is science. If you want to study the meanings of an offering, that is humanities. Sorry, I beg to differ. 8/

The nature of science is a real problem area in archaeology. Both the processualists and the postprocessualists had faulty, outdated views of science. Many processualists gave up. The postprocessualists continue criticizing a straw man concept of science (covering laws)... 9/

10/10 Concluding that scienceis not appropriate for archaeology because covering laws don’t work! With that logic, almost ALL of science today would be discarded! OK, I’ll shut up here. These 3 blog posts were a prececessor to my 2017 Antiquity article: http://publishingarchaeology.blogspot.com/2016/02/science-social-science-and-archaeology.html