The Scientific Nature of Postprocessualism
Christine S. VanPool and Todd L. VanPool
Abstract
The compatibility of processual and postprocessual archaeology has been heavily debated. This discussion is frequently phrased in terms of scientific vs. nonscientific/humanistic archaeology. We suggest that the “postprocessual debate” is based on a mischaracterization of science that is pervasive in archaeology, and is largely unnecessary when a more reasonable view of the nature of science is considered. To demonstrate this point, we begin our discussion by identifying several commonalities within most postprocessual approaches to provide a foundation for our discussion. We then consider the two classic criteria used to differentiate science and nonscience, Baconian inductivism and falsification, and demonstrate why these views lead to an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of science. We next examine seven attributes that are commonly accepted as characteristics of science in order to provide a more accurate view of the nature and workings of science. Based on this discussion, we argue that much postprocessual research is in fact scientific, and we ultimately conclude that postprocessual approaches as currently applied can contribute to a scientific understanding of the archaeological record.
Resumen
La compatibilidad del procesualismo y del postprocesualismo se ha discutido extesnsivamente. Con frecuencia este debate supone una oposición fundamental entre la arqueología cientíca y la arqueología humanística. Sugeremos que el debate procesual- postprocesual se deriva de un entendimiento falso del método científico, desgraciadamente muy común en la arqueología, y que es posible tomar una perspectiva mas balanceada. Para desarrollar nuestras ideas, comenzamos con identificar aspectos comunes de la mayoría de las posiciones teoréticas del postprocesualismo. Consideramos las dos criterias típicamente usadas para distinguir lo científico de lo no científico, el razonamiento inductivo de Bacon y la falsificacíon, y demostramos que estas perspectivas nos dan un entendimiento incompleto y distorcionado de la ciencia. Identificamos siete calidades comunamente aceptadas de la ciencia para mejor entender comon funciona el método científico. En base a esta discusión, proponemos que muchos estudios postprocesuales merecen llamarse científicos, y que el postprocesualismo puede contribuir al entendimiento científico de los restos arqueológicos.
This is site is best viewed with
Internet Explorer version 5.1 and above or
Netscape Navigator version 6 and above.
For all web related problems, please
contact us at
webmaster@saa.org.
