3 ms·

Although archaeology is certainly informed by scientific theory and uses the work of scientific fields like geology, it’s not truly a science. Crucially, archae

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."
  - skissane 6y ago
    I don't think the term "science" has ever had a single unified definition. When people say "Physics is a science" and "Archaeology is a science", I'm not convinced those two sentences are using the word "science" in exactly the same sense (although of course they are using it in somewhat related senses). Wittgenstein famously argued that there is nothing that all "games" have in common – there is no single common element to board games, card games, ball games – there is a "family resemblance" (Familienähnlichkeit) in which every "game" has some things in common with other "games", but there is no one thing that all games have in common. Maybe something similar is true for sciences as well.
AlotOfReading 6y ago
Archeology is what's called a historical science. One of the features of that designation is exactly the lack of general reproducibility you've identified. Geology (specifically subfields like geomorphology) has many of the same issues even though you've identified it as a scientific field. That said, as someone who's been a practicing archaeologist, I would agree that it's not entirely scientific, but only because the interesting questions in it often aren't answerable in a scientific framework.

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."
- skissane 6y ago
  I don't think the term "science" has ever had a single unified definition. When people say "Physics is a science" and "Archaeology is a science", I'm not convinced those two sentences are using the word "science" in exactly the same sense (although of course they are using it in somewhat related senses). Wittgenstein famously argued that there is nothing that all "games" have in common – there is no single common element to board games, card games, ball games – there is a "family resemblance" (Familienähnlichkeit) in which every "game" has some things in common with other "games", but there is no one thing that all games have in common. Maybe something similar is true for sciences as well.

AlotOfReading 6y ago

Archeology is what's called a historical science. One of the features of that designation is exactly the lack of general reproducibility you've identified. Geology (specifically subfields like geomorphology) has many of the same issues even though you've identified it as a scientific field. That said, as someone who's been a practicing archaeologist, I would agree that it's not entirely scientific, but only because the interesting questions in it often aren't answerable in a scientific framework.