7 ms·

While it's interesting to learn how indigenous cultures interpret archaeological sites, this article blurs the distinction between scientific and pre-scientific

While it's interesting to learn how indigenous cultures interpret archaeological sites, this article blurs the distinction between scientific and pre-scientific understanding of archaeology. It presents "Western science" (which should be referred to as "science," an international pursuit that happens to have begun in the West) as just another means of interpreting archaeological sites, alongside myths, folk beliefs, etc. Reading this article (and looking at some of the other articles on the site) reminds me of what I've heard elsewhere about the deep rift in anthropology between the physical and the cultural anthropologists. It appears to me to be a conflict between a scientific worldview and an increasingly subjective, politically influenced worldview. One manifestation of this is the decision by the American Anthropological Association to remove the word "science" from its mission statement.[1-2] 1. http://blogs.nature.com/news/2010/11/hold_the_science_says_anthropo.html http://blogs.nature.com/news/2010/11/hold_the_science_says_a... 2. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.ht...

DC-3 6y ago
It's the influence of post-modern thought; the idea that rationality and the scientific method are fundamentally sculpted by a patriarchal and chauvinistic white male worldview or 'gaze'. From this, post-modernism asserts that no way of knowing can be any better than any other, and that oral tradition and mysticism are equally if not more valid. I leave it to the readers of HN to judge the validity of this philosophical stance; but one thing that cannot be disputed is that this school of thought is increasingly influencing our culture and politics. It's this epistemological stance that underlaid the much derided NMAAHC poster that attributed 'Emphasis on the Scientific Method' to Whiteness [1]. Indeed if you read modern Critical Race Theory texts there is a great deal of emphasis on oral histories of oppressed peoples, and they are considered more accurate than 'scientific' data, for those data were surely collected by the oppressors. It's also part of the reason why paganism, witchcraft, and the occult are fashionable among many leftists today; they view these ideas as standing in opposition to enlightenment rationality, which they dislike for its perceived privileged underpinnings. [1]https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651 https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651
- zozbot234 6y ago
  It's pre-modern thought, not "post-modern" really. It's not even anti-West or anything, just anti-modernity and against progress. After all, "the West" used to be just as free of rationality and scientific ways of knowing as any other ("indigenous" or otherwise) culture. Paganism, witchcraft and witch-hunts, "the occult" and the like are in fact part of this pre-modern legacy.
  - DC-3 6y ago
    It's post-modern in the sense of being chronologically after (and a reaction to) the philosophical school of modernism. That's not to imply some great cosmic arc (in fact, post-modernism explicitly refutes such grand narratives - specifically those of Marx that turned out to be dismally incorrect when the subjugated working classes turned to fascism not communism in the 1930s). E: I accidentally a word
  - jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
    You really shouldn't equate technology with "progress". How many people are going to die today? How many are going to die tomorrow? What are our health outcomes? Is anyone hungry? I think such metrics indicate progress much more clearly than "How many patents have been filed today?"
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  I mean, I see a ton of articles of "newly discovered species" that the locals knew about ages ago. As well as "newly discovered pharmaceuticals" or any of that other stuff. I never attributed this to some kind of patriarchy or male worldview. I think it's totally rational to argue that sometimes the scientific method, which was developed in a european country, takes time to catch up to local knowledge in non-european countries. I don't really see any scientific study or evidence to prove that science is somehow being overtaken by some narrative force. A random's tweet doesn't prove much to me. Of course, if science does prove your claim, the paradox is that science is again catching up to the observations of the locals (of the internet).
  - 6y ago
bsanr2 6y ago
I don't see the problem. The questions anthropology seeks to answer are heavily influenced by politics and subjectivity; attempting to erase the imprecision with which humanity engages with reality paints an imprecise picture of humanity itself. As scientific inquiry is limited by the range of conceivable hypotheses (where that range is limited by experience, dogma, even bias) and available methods of observation, it seems imprudent to proclaim a "scientific worldview" (which is used inappropriately here, though not always elsewhere, as a synonym for "reason") as the be-all-end-all of interest. Especially in a society that has seen no small amount of reckless regard towards physical evidence of indigenous history. I see no reason to begrudge people the right to fill the vacuum left with whatever they like as long as it doesn't contradict physical evidence; they weren't the ones asking for developers to pave over grave sites. It's a bit of a, "lying in the bed you made," situation.
WrongThinkerNo5 6y ago
I think you are addressing something that also immensely bothers me because not only is our "science" in the west often not scientific process at all, but that the "science" of documenting and researching culture and traditions is not considered "science" by many. It is related to my vehement repulsion to "globalism" and "immigration" too that is probably the single most destructive force in human history that has ever happened as it is erasing actual cultural diversity and uniqueness at a mind boggling rate that makes the mass extinction events others are concerned about all but look trivial. All over the world, from India, to Thailand, to Belize, to France, to Germany, to Italy to Poland… local traditions and cultures are being snuffed out as the globalist corporate monster of world domination turns everyone into monoculture consumers of the same corporate drivel. It's sad, really, I encourage everyone to learn as much as you can from your elders and link into your particular cultures, because the very deranged people leading our world dominating corporations want to erase all of that and make us all consume the monoculture they will serve you up … from India, to Thailand, to Belize, to France, to Germany … It's really rather sad. Do yourself a favor and try to preserve what will never be recoverable again if it is not captured and archived, and dies with the past generations instead.
BurritoAlPastor 6y ago
Although archaeology is certainly informed by scientific theory and uses the work of scientific fields like geology, it’s not truly a science. Crucially, archaeological excavations are not reproducible, and archaeological theories are not experimentally falsifiable. The same is true of cultural anthropology.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  Many sciences are not reproducible, in that they don't have reproducible experiments. The key is the integrity of the data and clear explanation of the analysis methods. But archaeology most definitely does have experimentally falsifiable theories, and it is undoubtedly a science.
  - BurritoAlPastor 6y ago
    What's a scientific field with non-reproducible experiments? I'm hard-pressed to think of any field with the kind of no-do-overs issues that archaeological excavations have.
    - gbear605 6y ago
      Much of astronomy and astrophysics, for one, doesn’t even have the concept of experiments. They observe past behavior and predict future behavior, but they can’t do anything like the causal trials that define other sciences. Same with geology, the study of weather (sorry I’m blanking on the term), and some fields of biology. Anything that it is impossible to causally affect in a lab.
    - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
      Paleontology. You can't dig up the same fossil twice. But you're not going to claim that the study of ancient species using the fossil record is unscientific, I hope. Paleontology is very similar to archaeology, but because humans aren't the object of study, it's less affected by politics, and I haven't heard of any fights within paleontology over whether to call the field a "science."
    - 6y ago
205guy 6y ago
Your links are 10 years old. The current website of the American Anthropological Association seems to have reconciled (compromised on) both views: https://www.americananthro.org/ https://www.americananthro.org/ Their subtitle is "Advancing Knowledge, Solving Human Problems" Their About page (https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=1665&&navItemNumber=586 https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?I...) says: "The Association is dedicated to advancing human understanding and applying this understanding to the world’s most pressing problems. While 75 percent of our members are employed in higher education or are students of anthropology, about 25 percent of our members work in the public, private, and non-governmental sectors, beyond the academy." The Statement of Purpose page (https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=1650&&navItemNumber=760 https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?I...) says: "The purposes of the Association shall be - to advance anthropology as the science that studies humankind in all its aspects, through archeological, biological, ethnological, and linguistic research; - and to further the professional interests of American anthropologists, including the dissemination of anthropological knowledge and its use to solve human problems."
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  The very fact that they fought over whether or not to call their discipline a "science" shows that there's a rift in the field. I know this same issue has led to the breakup of some anthropology departments, including at Stanford (forced to merge again later), Duke and Harvard.

DC-3 6y ago

It's the influence of post-modern thought; the idea that rationality and the scientific method are fundamentally sculpted by a patriarchal and chauvinistic white male worldview or 'gaze'. From this, post-modernism asserts that no way of knowing can be any better than any other, and that oral tradition and mysticism are equally if not more valid. I leave it to the readers of HN to judge the validity of this philosophical stance; but one thing that cannot be disputed is that this school of thought is increasingly influencing our culture and politics. It's this epistemological stance that underlaid the much derided NMAAHC poster that attributed 'Emphasis on the Scientific Method' to Whiteness [1]. Indeed if you read modern Critical Race Theory texts there is a great deal of emphasis on oral histories of oppressed peoples, and they are considered more accurate than 'scientific' data, for those data were surely collected by the oppressors. It's also part of the reason why paganism, witchcraft, and the occult are fashionable among many leftists today; they view these ideas as standing in opposition to enlightenment rationality, which they dislike for its perceived privileged underpinnings. [1]https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651 https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651

zozbot234 6y ago
It's pre-modern thought, not "post-modern" really. It's not even anti-West or anything, just anti-modernity and against progress. After all, "the West" used to be just as free of rationality and scientific ways of knowing as any other ("indigenous" or otherwise) culture. Paganism, witchcraft and witch-hunts, "the occult" and the like are in fact part of this pre-modern legacy.
- DC-3 6y ago
  It's post-modern in the sense of being chronologically after (and a reaction to) the philosophical school of modernism. That's not to imply some great cosmic arc (in fact, post-modernism explicitly refutes such grand narratives - specifically those of Marx that turned out to be dismally incorrect when the subjugated working classes turned to fascism not communism in the 1930s). E: I accidentally a word
- jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
  You really shouldn't equate technology with "progress". How many people are going to die today? How many are going to die tomorrow? What are our health outcomes? Is anyone hungry? I think such metrics indicate progress much more clearly than "How many patents have been filed today?"
TeaDrunk 6y ago
I mean, I see a ton of articles of "newly discovered species" that the locals knew about ages ago. As well as "newly discovered pharmaceuticals" or any of that other stuff. I never attributed this to some kind of patriarchy or male worldview. I think it's totally rational to argue that sometimes the scientific method, which was developed in a european country, takes time to catch up to local knowledge in non-european countries. I don't really see any scientific study or evidence to prove that science is somehow being overtaken by some narrative force. A random's tweet doesn't prove much to me. Of course, if science does prove your claim, the paradox is that science is again catching up to the observations of the locals (of the internet).
- 6y ago

bsanr2 6y ago

I don't see the problem. The questions anthropology seeks to answer are heavily influenced by politics and subjectivity; attempting to erase the imprecision with which humanity engages with reality paints an imprecise picture of humanity itself. As scientific inquiry is limited by the range of conceivable hypotheses (where that range is limited by experience, dogma, even bias) and available methods of observation, it seems imprudent to proclaim a "scientific worldview" (which is used inappropriately here, though not always elsewhere, as a synonym for "reason") as the be-all-end-all of interest. Especially in a society that has seen no small amount of reckless regard towards physical evidence of indigenous history. I see no reason to begrudge people the right to fill the vacuum left with whatever they like as long as it doesn't contradict physical evidence; they weren't the ones asking for developers to pave over grave sites. It's a bit of a, "lying in the bed you made," situation.

WrongThinkerNo5 6y ago

I think you are addressing something that also immensely bothers me because not only is our "science" in the west often not scientific process at all, but that the "science" of documenting and researching culture and traditions is not considered "science" by many. It is related to my vehement repulsion to "globalism" and "immigration" too that is probably the single most destructive force in human history that has ever happened as it is erasing actual cultural diversity and uniqueness at a mind boggling rate that makes the mass extinction events others are concerned about all but look trivial. All over the world, from India, to Thailand, to Belize, to France, to Germany, to Italy to Poland… local traditions and cultures are being snuffed out as the globalist corporate monster of world domination turns everyone into monoculture consumers of the same corporate drivel. It's sad, really, I encourage everyone to learn as much as you can from your elders and link into your particular cultures, because the very deranged people leading our world dominating corporations want to erase all of that and make us all consume the monoculture they will serve you up … from India, to Thailand, to Belize, to France, to Germany … It's really rather sad. Do yourself a favor and try to preserve what will never be recoverable again if it is not captured and archived, and dies with the past generations instead.

BurritoAlPastor 6y ago

Although archaeology is certainly informed by scientific theory and uses the work of scientific fields like geology, it’s not truly a science. Crucially, archaeological excavations are not reproducible, and archaeological theories are not experimentally falsifiable. The same is true of cultural anthropology.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
Many sciences are not reproducible, in that they don't have reproducible experiments. The key is the integrity of the data and clear explanation of the analysis methods. But archaeology most definitely does have experimentally falsifiable theories, and it is undoubtedly a science.
- BurritoAlPastor 6y ago
  What's a scientific field with non-reproducible experiments? I'm hard-pressed to think of any field with the kind of no-do-overs issues that archaeological excavations have.
  - gbear605 6y ago
    Much of astronomy and astrophysics, for one, doesn’t even have the concept of experiments. They observe past behavior and predict future behavior, but they can’t do anything like the causal trials that define other sciences. Same with geology, the study of weather (sorry I’m blanking on the term), and some fields of biology. Anything that it is impossible to causally affect in a lab.
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    Paleontology. You can't dig up the same fossil twice. But you're not going to claim that the study of ancient species using the fossil record is unscientific, I hope. Paleontology is very similar to archaeology, but because humans aren't the object of study, it's less affected by politics, and I haven't heard of any fights within paleontology over whether to call the field a "science."
  - 6y ago

205guy 6y ago

Your links are 10 years old. The current website of the American Anthropological Association seems to have reconciled (compromised on) both views: https://www.americananthro.org/ https://www.americananthro.org/ Their subtitle is "Advancing Knowledge, Solving Human Problems" Their About page (https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=1665&&navItemNumber=586 https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?I...) says: "The Association is dedicated to advancing human understanding and applying this understanding to the world’s most pressing problems. While 75 percent of our members are employed in higher education or are students of anthropology, about 25 percent of our members work in the public, private, and non-governmental sectors, beyond the academy." The Statement of Purpose page (https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=1650&&navItemNumber=760 https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?I...) says: "The purposes of the Association shall be - to advance anthropology as the science that studies humankind in all its aspects, through archeological, biological, ethnological, and linguistic research; - and to further the professional interests of American anthropologists, including the dissemination of anthropological knowledge and its use to solve human problems."

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
The very fact that they fought over whether or not to call their discipline a "science" shows that there's a rift in the field. I know this same issue has led to the breakup of some anthropology departments, including at Stanford (forced to merge again later), Duke and Harvard.