The death of archaeological theory

[Imperial Dave]

https://www.academia.edu/11319196/Why_The_Death_of_Archaeological_Theory_In_Charlotta_Hillerdal_and_Johannes_Siapkas_eds._2015_Debating_Archaeological_Empiricism_The_Ambiguity_of_Material_Evidence_11-31._London_Routledge?auto=download&campaign=weekly_digest

not sure I completely agree but nonetheless a fascinating insight into the world of archaeology and why analysis over theory is being touted as the main thrust of advances in knowledge

[Dave Beatty]

Hmmm... I always thought that theories were tools to point out possible lines of scientific exploration in order to prove or disprove the theory... if proved, it is no longer a theory and therefore fact; if disproved it is no longer a theory since it is false.... hence the true goal of any theory is death. Problem is with those who refuse to let go of a dead theory... which then takes on the shade of a religion (sort of a sacred cow  )

[Imperial Dave]

Hmmm... I always thought that theories were tools to point out possible lines of scientific exploration in order to prove or disprove the theory... if proved, it is no longer a theory and therefore fact; if disproved it is no longer a theory since it is false.... hence the true goal of any theory is death. Problem is with those who refuse to let go of a dead theory... which then takes on the shade of a religion (sort of a sacred cow  )

oh I agree Dave.....theories are there to be proved or disproved by evidence. I guess the main thrust is that people are starting to look at the evidence an then fit a proposal around that

[Patrick Waterson]

oh I agree Dave.....theories are there to be proved or disproved by evidence. I guess the main thrust is that people are starting to look at the evidence an then fit a proposal around that

Or fit one around the interpretation of evidence, which may not be quite the same thing ...

[Imperial Dave]

oh I agree Dave.....theories are there to be proved or disproved by evidence. I guess the main thrust is that people are starting to look at the evidence an then fit a proposal around that

Or fit one around the interpretation of evidence, which may not be quite the same thing ...

of course....evidence can be interpreted a multitude of ways....I still prefer the holistic approach

[Andreas Johansson]

Hmmm... I always thought that theories were tools to point out possible lines of scientific exploration in order to prove or disprove the theory... if proved, it is no longer a theory and therefore fact; if disproved it is no longer a theory since it is false.... hence the true goal of any theory is death. Problem is with those who refuse to let go of a dead theory... which then takes on the shade of a religion (sort of a sacred cow  )

This isn't how the word is generally used in the hard sciences. A theory is a framework for explaining some class of phenomena - it remains a theory no matter to what extent it is confirmed or disproved by observation. We're not about to stop speaking of, say, "the theory of relativity" just because there's now a mountain of confirming evidence (incl the fact that the GPS in you cellphone works at all).

[Imperial Dave]

good point Andreas, it will always be the theory of relativity (to me anyhow). I also have a theory that motorways suck the living soul out of you 

[Mark G]

Something like

E=JC^-2

Where E is enthusiasm
And JC is Jeremy Clarkson

[RichT]

Yes I wanted to put my pedant hat on here too - a (scientific) theory doesn't stop being a theory when it is 'proved' (that is, continues to fit the observed facts and have good predictive and explanatory powers).

Stephen Jay Gould - "facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Hence Theory of Relativity, Theory of Gravity, Quantum Theory, Theory of Evolution etc etc.

A theory in vernacular usage is different - "an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or hypothesis" - like your motorway one (while the Clarkson one is established empirical fact).

[Andreas Johansson]

I did specifically say "hard sciences" because I realize I don't actually know if archaeologists use the word quite the same way.

[Patrick Waterson]

Not sure if archaeologists really know either.

[RichT]

Yes - and I know very little about it either TBH - as I understand it Archaeological theory is partly about methodology, and partly a more philosophical debate about the nature of knowledge - so not really the same as the hard science usage.

Oh there's a big Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_theory

Wikipedia is your friend.

[Erpingham]

I'd avoided reading the article till now because I had enough archaeological theory to last a lifetime in the 70's.  It always seemed to be in a world of its own, not helped by the earnest way our theory lecturer thrust it on us.  Eventually, I gave in and read it.  I don't think its improved any

Actually, buried in this are some quite sensible ideas about the development of a discipline and a move from desperately leaping at any passing new concept (because that's what you had to do academically to get your discipline taken seriously by the big boys) and a more mature critical approach.  It doesn't really address the relationship between the theorists and the "dirt" archaeologists though.  maybe that's another conference, another paper

[Imperial Dave]

Yes - and I know very little about it either TBH - as I understand it Archaeological theory is partly about methodology, and partly a more philosophical debate about the nature of knowledge - so not really the same as the hard science usage.

Oh there's a big Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_theory

Wikipedia is your friend.

and the biggest loss of free (and unfree) time known to man.......

[Dave Beatty]

Actually, once a Theory is proven it becomes a Law.