Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 20 Mar 1997 13:30:03 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Mary Ellin D'Agostino wrote:
> The ol' science vs. humanism thing.... Many of us (both prehistorians and
> historians) have come to the unsurprising conclusion that there is room for
> both approaches and many of us like to combine the two! By this, I mean
> rigorous data collection and analysis combined with self-reflective,
> post-modernist, humanistic, historical, (fill in other adjectives here)
> approaches.
Mary-
I'm tired of this debate as well. As you noted, the division is really a
false dicotomy. Placing archaeology firmly within the social sciences, we
still use methods from the natural sciences to do research (ie. carbon
dating, soil science, etc.). However, the point of the posting was that
we cannot use a positivist epistemology because we do not practice an
objective science.
La lucha continua,
Kevin M. Bartoy.
|
|
|