Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T22:43:43.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laws, Systems, and Research Designs: A Discussion of Explanation in Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

H. David Tuggle ,
Alex H. Townsend  and
Thomas J. Riley
H. David Tuggle
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii
Alex H. Townsend
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii
Thomas J. Riley
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Archaeology must come to grips with the basic philosophical problems of science. With this premise in mind, we welcome the recent article on explanation by Fritz and Plog (1970) and offer a review and critique of it with the following points: (1) The D-N model of explanation is not the exclusive explanatory system in science and is in fact subject to extensive discussion and criticism in several areas of science; (2) archaeologists have not employed laws commonly in the past but rather deductive reasoning based on assumed premises; (3) the use of laws in explanation may reduce archaeology to a science of historical exemplification; (4) the research design presented by Fritz and Plog may be modified to include concern for hypothesis formulation, variable identification in the archaeological context, and the interplay of hypotheses and data throughout excavation and analysis; (5) the Meehan system paradigm explanatory model is presented as an alternative to the D-N model; (6) what archaeologists try to explain is relevant to the nature of the explanation.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 1972 , pp. 3 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackermann, Robert 1965 Discussion: deductive scientific explanation. Philosophy of Science 32:155-167.Google Scholar
Bartley, W. W. III 1962 Achilles, the tortoise, and explanation in science and history. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 13:15-33.Google Scholar
Bayard, Donn T. 1969 Science, theory and reality in the “new archaeology.” American Antiquity 34:376-384.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert W. 1965 Discussion: deduction, prediction and completeness conditions. Philosophy of Science 33:165-167.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Richard J. (Editor) 1965 Perspectives on Peirce. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1968 Archeological perspectives. In New perspectives in archeology, edited by Binford, Sally R. and Binford, Lewis R., pp. 5-32. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Brothwell, Don, and Eric, Higgs (Editors) 1969 Science in archaeology. Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
Buchler, Justus 1955 Philosophical writings of Peirce. Dover Publications, New York.Google Scholar
Buckley, Walter 1967 Sociology and modern systems theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
Canfield, John, and Keith, Lehrer 1961 A note on prediction and deduction. Philosophy of Science 28:204-208.Google Scholar
Caws, Peter 1969 The structure of discovery. Science 166:1375-1380.Google Scholar
Clarke, David 1968 Analytical archaeology. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Dietl, Paul J. 1968 Deduction and historical explanation. Philosophy of Science 7:167-188.Google Scholar
Donagan, Alan 1957 Explanation in history. Mind 46:145-164.Google Scholar
Dray, William 1959 “Explaining what” in history. In Theories of history, edited by Patrick, Gardiner, pp. 403-408. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Durbin, Robert 1969 Theory building. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Eberle, Rolf, David, Kaplan, and Richard, Montague 1961 Hempel and Oppenheim on explanation. Philosophy of Science 28:418-428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faare, George L. 1968 On the linguistic foundations of the problem of scientific discovery. The Journal of Philosophy 67:779-794.Google Scholar
Frankel, Charles 1957 Explanation and interpretation in history. Philosophy of Science 24:137-155.Google Scholar
Fritz, John, and Plog, Fred T. 1970 The nature of archaeological explanation. American Antiquity 35:405-412.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, Michael T. 1969 The triumph of the Darwinian method. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Glaser, Barney G., and Strauss, Anselm L. 1967 The Discovery of grounded theory. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Leon J. 1967 Theory in history. Philosophy of Science 34:23-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goudge, Thomas A. 1950 The thought of C. S. Peirce. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
Hanna, Joseph F. 1968 An explication of “explication.” Philosophy of Science 35:28-44.Google Scholar
Hanson, Norwood Russell 1967 Observation and interpretation. In Philosophy of science today, edited by Sidney, Morgenbesser, pp. 89-99. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Hanson, Norwood Russell 1969 Patterns of discovery. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. 1942 The function of general laws in history. The Journal of Philosophy 39:35-48.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. 1945 Studies in the logic of confirmation. Mind 54:1-26, 97-121.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. 1965 Aspects of scientific explanation. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G., and Paul, Oppenheim 1948 Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science 15:135-175.Google Scholar
Hooykaas, R. 1963 The principle of uniformity in geology, biology, and theology. E. J. Brill, Leiden.Google Scholar
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1970 Operations problems in archeology. In Current directions in anthropology, edited by Ann, Fischer, pp. 111-114. American Anthropological Association, Bulletin 3 (3, pt. 2): 111-114.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul F. 1962 Philosophy of science and empirical social research. In Logic, methodology and philosophy of science, edited by Ernest, Nagel, Patrick, Suppes, and Alfred, Tarski, pp. 463-473. Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
LeClair, Edward E., and Schneider, Harold K. 1968 Economic anthropology: readings in theory and analysis. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
Leopold, Luna B., and Langbein, Walter B. 1963 Association and indeterminancy in geomorphology. In The fabric of geology, edited by Albritton, Claude C., pp. 184-192. Addison-Wesley, Reading.Google Scholar
Macklin, Ruth 1968 Norm and law in the theory of action. Inquiry 11:400-409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manners, Robert A., and David, Kaplan (Editors) 1968 Theory in anthropology. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, Maurice 1961 Historical explanation: the problem of covering laws. History and theory 1:229-242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medawar, Peter Brian 1969 Induction and intuition in scientific thought. American Philosophical Society, Memoirs 75.Google Scholar
Meehan, Eugene J. 1968 Explanation in social science. A system paradigm. Dorsey, Homewood.Google Scholar
Mellor, D. H. 1965 Experimental error and deducibility. Philosophy of Science 32:105-122.Google Scholar
Nell, Edward J. 1968 Review of Hempel’s “Aspects of scientific explanation.” History and theory 7:224-40.Google Scholar
Newman, Fred 1965 Discussion: explanation sketches. Philosophy of science 32:168-72.Google Scholar
Omer, I. A. 1970 On the D-N model of scientific explanation. Philosophy of Science 37:417-433.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1965 Conjectures and refutations. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1968 The logic of scientific discovery. Harper Torchbooks, New York.Google Scholar
Rapoport, Anatol 1969 Methodology in the physical, biological, and social sciences. General Systems 14:179-186.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley 1964 The foundations of scientific inference. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Scriven, Michael 1959 Truisms as the grounds for historical explanations. In Theories of history, edited by Patrick, Gardiner, pp. 443-475. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Simpson, George G. 1963 Historical science. In The fabric of geology, edited by Albritton, Claude C., pp. 24-48. Addison-Wesley, Reading.Google Scholar
Suchting, W. A. 1967 Deductive explanation and prediction revisited. Philosophy of Science 34:41-52.Google Scholar
Taylor, Walter W. 1948 A study of archaeology. American Anthropological Association, Memoir 69.Google Scholar
Thompson, Raymond H. 1958 Modern Yucatecan pottery making. Society for American Archaeology, Memoir 15.Google Scholar
Trigger, Bruce G. 1970 Aims in prehistoric archaeology. Antiquity 44:26-37.Google Scholar
Tuggle, H. David 1970 Prehistoric community relationships in east central Arizona. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Veatch, Henry 1970 Review of Hempel’s “Aspects of scientific explanation.” Philosophy of Science 37:312-314.Google Scholar
Watson, James D. 1968 The double helix. Signet, New York.Google Scholar
Watson, Richard A. 1965 Similitude in direct and thought experiments in cave geology. National Speleological Society, Bulletin 27:65-76.Google Scholar
Watson, Richard A. 1969 Explanation and prediction in geology. Journal of Geology 77:488-494.Google Scholar
Watson, Richard A. 1970 Review of Hooykaas’ “The principle of uniformity in geology, biology, and theology.” Philosophy of Science 37:316-317.Google Scholar
White, Morton G. 1943 Historical explanation. Mind 52:212-229.Google Scholar
Wilson, Fred 1969 Explanation in Aristotle, Newton, and Toulmin. Philosophy of Science 36:291-310.Google Scholar