4 ms·
> it's basically conjectures pilled upon one another. It's not just archeology, history is not much better either. They're both basically pseudosciences
by bowsamic 2y ago
> it's basically conjectures pilled upon one another.
It's not just archeology, history is not much better either. They're both basically pseudosciences
- mistermann 2y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.
- bowsamic 2y agoYes
- mistermann 2y agoYes, to what question/proposition?
- bowsamic 2y agoI agree, that's the definition
- mistermann 2y agoDo archeology & history claim to be scientific?
- bowsamic 2y agoI think so yes
- mistermann 2y agoWhat if say only 5% of people within each discipline do so, what is the epistemic value then of the claim "Archeology & history claim to be scientific"?
- bowsamic 2y agoI don't know what you mean, sorry
- mistermann 2y agoOk, as a thought experiment, let's say there are only 100 archaeologists in the world, and you do a survey: "Is archaeology a science?" 95 say no, 5 say yes. Is "Archaeologists claim archaeology is a science" a true statement?
- bowsamic 2y agoI have no idea how this relates to the conversation
- mistermann 2y agoThis is highly relevant to my interests, thank you for disclosing that.