The Rules of the Game
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: The Rules of the Game
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The Rules of the Game
As you say. But the roof could not have been made without the scaffolding! In other words:Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 11:38 amYou seem to be missing my point. To use your metaphor, once the roof is made, it does not matter what the scaffolding was like...Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 10:59 am
You miss my point. (Only) when the roof is erected and complete, the scaffolding is "unimportant to its usefulness", yes? Unless scientists creatively devise means of capturing and verifying "new data", there will be no "new data", yes?
If we say that obtaining, and understanding, "new data" is an important aim, maybe the most important aim, that science has, it would be difficult to argue against. But if we misunderstood that statement to say that obtaining "new data" is the only important aim that science has, we would be wrong. And I think that is what is happening here.
"Who cares, wins"
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7096
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Rules of the Game
Archaeology is a Humanity that can use scientific method. It's quite distinct from science. In the 1960s there was an attempt to make it more purely scientific by David Clarke. His methods colonised the study of archaeology for sometime, but by the 1990s was showing its cracks tending to offer sterile and close to meaningless results. This "processual" archaeology has pretty much faded away, and a new syncratism between a more historical, semiotic, hermeneutic, cultural archaology which employs data collection without the hard sciency bit offers a more nuanced set of interpretations.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: The Rules of the Game
Cultural anthropology suffers from the same dilemma. It often attempts over-reaching attempts at a scientific approach to the study of culture: structural-functionalism, Neo-Marxism, the culture and personality school, etc. Unfortunately, none have been particularly successful, and the notion that a "Science" is somehow superior to a "Humanity" seems iffy.
The two "sciences" of culture that have shown some results (predictive value, etc.) are economics and linguistics. Some anthropologists (like Claude Levi-Strauss) have tried to borrow some of their techniques to study kinship, myth, and other facets of culture. The attempts have been fascinating, but scientific success has been limited.
I haven't kept up on what's current in arhaeology for the past several decades.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023