Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T21:11:02.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Questions of Evidence, Legitimacy, and the (Dis)Unity of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Alison Wylie
Alison Wylie*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Washington University, Campus Box 1073, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The recent Science Wars have brought into sharp focus, in a public forum, contentious questions about the authority of science and what counts as properly scientific practice that have long structured archaeological debate. As in the larger debate, localized disputes in archaeology often presuppose a conception of science as a unified enterprise defined by common goals, standards, and research programs; specific forms of inquiry are advocated (or condemned) by claiming affiliation with science so conceived. This pattern of argument obscures much that is most creative in archaeological practice. Archaeologists routinely exploit both integrating and fragmenting relations among the sciences, especially in establishing evidential claims. I will argue that the credibility of these claims is a function, not of scientific status acquired by corporate affiliation, but of the substantive trade in tools and techniques, empirical insights, models, and theories that is made possible by local interactions between archaeology and a wide range of other disciplines. There is much more to be gained by developing a rich critical understanding of the interfield relations that make this trade possible than by appealing to generic ideals of science.

Resumen

Resumen

Las recientes Guerras Científicas han enfatizado, en unforo público, dudas sobre la autoridad de la ciencia y práctica cientifica que por mucho tiempo han estructurado el debate arqueológico. Asi como en el debate general, disputas particulares en la arqueología frequentemente presuponen un concepto de la ciencia como una empresa unificada, definida por fines, estándares, y programas de investigación comunes; se defienden (o condenan) específicas formas de investigatión de acuerdo a su afiliación con la ciencia así definida. Este patrón de argumento oscurece la creatividad en la práctica arqueológica. Los arqueólogos rutinariamente explotan tanto la integración como la fragmentatión de las relaciones entre las ciencias, especialmente cuando deben establecer evidencias. Yo arguyo que la credibilidad de la evidencia no es una función del estatus cientifico adquirido por afiliación, sino de aquél obtenido por el intercambio substantivo de técnicas y herramientas, descubrimientos empíricos, modelos, y teorías, el cual es posible debido a que existen interacciones locales entre la arqueología y varias otras disciplinas. Mucho más se podria ganar si, en lugar de apelar a ideales genéricos de la ciencia, se desarrollara un entendimiento crítico de las relaciones entre campos cientificOs que hacen posible este intercambio.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 65 , Issue 2 , April 2000 , pp. 227 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2000

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

References Cited

Athanasiou, T. 1995 Science Wars? A Book, A Conference, and a Bit of Polemic. Socialist Review 25(l) : 17–23.Google Scholar
Bamforth, D. 1999 William Shakespeare and Charles Darwin : Metaphor as Argument in Evolutionary Archaeology. Paper presented at the 64 Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Chicago.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W. (editor) 1986 Integrating Scientific Disciplines. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1983 Working at Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1989 Debating Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Brown, M. W. 1995 Scientists Deplore Flight from Reason. New York Times 6 June : Cl, C7.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1995 The Metaphysics of the Disunified World. In PSA 1994, Proceedings of the 1994 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2, edited by Hull, D., Forbes, M., and Burian, R. M., pp. 357–364. Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan.Google Scholar
Clark, G. 1996 NAGPRA and the Demon-Haunted World. SAA Bulletin 14(5) : 3.Google Scholar
Darden, L. 1991 Theory Change in Science : Strategies from Mendelian Genetics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Darden, L. and Maull, N. 1977 Interfield Theories. Philosophy of Science 44(\) : 43^64. Google Scholar
Dupre, J. 1993 The Disorder of Things : Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, M. 1995 Critical Notice : John Dupre, The Disorder of Things. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 25(1) : 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, S. 1996 Professor Sokal's Bad Joke. New York Times 21 May : A23.Google Scholar
Fujimura, J. H. 1998 Authorizing Knowledge in Science and Anthropology. American Anthropologist 100 : 347– 360.Google Scholar
Galison, P. 1996 Computer Simulations and the Trading Zone. In The Disunity of Science : Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, edited by Galison, P. and Stump, D.J. pp. 118–157. Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. 1980 Theory and Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Gross, P. R., and Levitt, N. 1994 Higher Superstition : The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Gross, P. R., Levitt, N., and Lewis, M. W. 1997 The Flight from Reason. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Gulbenkian Commission 1996 Open the Social Sciences. Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1983 Representing and Intervening. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1992 The Self-Vindication of the Laboratory Sciences. In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Pickering, A., pp. 29–64. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1996 The Disunities of Science. In The Disunity of Science : Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, edited by Galison, P. and Stump, D.J. pp. 37–74. Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
Herbert, W. 1995 ThePCAssaultonScience. U.S.NewsandWorldReport 20 February : 64–65.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1991 Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role. American Antiquity 56 : 7–18.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1999 The Archaeological Process : An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.Google Scholar
Holquist, M., Shulman, R., Levine, G., Wise, M. N., Byers, N., C.Pellegrino, and S. Weinberg 1996 Sokal's Hoax : An Exchange. The New York Review of Books 3 October : 54–56.Google Scholar
Holton, G. 1993 Science and Anti-Science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kosso, P. 1991 Method in Archaeology : Middle-Range Theory as Hermeneutics. American Antiquity 56 : 621–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B., Shulman, B., Fuller, S., Daniels, J. M., Melott, A., and Ruse, M. 1995 Who Speaks for Science? (Letters to the Editor, responses to Ruse 1994). The Sciences March/April : 6–9.Google Scholar
Lederman, R. 1996 Anti Anti “Anti-Science.” American Anthropologist 98 : 396–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leone, M. P., and Potter, P. B. Jr. 1988 Issues in Historical Archaeology. In The Recovery of Meaning, edited by Leone, M. P. and B, P.. Potter Jr., pp. 1–22. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Levins, R. 1966 The Strategy of Model Building in Population Biology. American Scientist 54 : 421 –431.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. L., and O'Brien, M. J. 1998 The Goals of Evolutionary Archaeology. Current Anthropology 39 : 615–652.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. 1998 The Sleep of Reason. The New Republic 12 October : 32–38.Google Scholar
Novick, P. 1988 That Noble Dream : The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
O'Brien, M. J., and Holland, T. D. 1995a Behavioral Archaeology and the Extended Phenotype. In Expanding Archaeology : A Behavioral Approach to the A rchaeological Record, edited by Skibo, J. M., Walker, W. H., and Nielsen, A. E., pp. 143–161. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
O'Brien, M. J., and Holland, T. D. 1995b The Nature and Promise of a Selection-Based Archaeology. In Evolutionary Archaeology : Methodological Issues, edited by Teltser, P. A., pp. 175–200. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
O'Brien, M. J., Lyman, R. L., and Leonard, R. D. 1998 Basic Incompatibilities between Evolutionary and Behavioral Archaeology. American Antiquity 63 : 485–198.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, P., and Putnam, H. 1958 Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis. In Concepts, Theories, and the Mind-Body Problem, edited by Feigl, H., Scriven, M., and Maxwell, G., pp. 3–36. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. n. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Orzack, S. H., and Sober, E. 1993 A Critical Assessment of Levins's The Strategy of Model Building in Population Biology (1966). Quarterly Review of Biology 68(4) : 533–555.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1963 Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1976 Before Civilization : The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. Penguin Books, New York.Google Scholar
Ross, A. (editor) 1996 Science Wars. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. 1994 Struggle for the Soul of Science. The Sciences 34(6) : 39^14.Google Scholar
Science versus|Antiscience 1997 Scientific American. January : 96–101.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. 1996 Some Relationships between Behavioral and Evolutionary Archaeologies. American Antiquity 61 : 643–662.Google Scholar
Shanks, M” and Tilley, C. 1987 Social Theory and Archaeology. Polity Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Skibo, J. M., Walker, W. H., and Nielsen, A. E. (editors) 1995 Expanding Archaeology : A Behavioral Approach to the Archaeological Record. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Sokal, A. D. 1996a Transgressing the Boundaries : Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. Social Text 46-47 : 217–252.Google Scholar
Sokal, A. D. 1996b A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies. Lingua Franca 6(4) : 62–64.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. 1984 The Plurality of Science. In Probabilistic Metaphysics, edited by Suppes, P., pp. 118–134. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Trigger, B. G. 1991 Early Native North American Responses to European Contact : Romantic Versus Rationalistic Interpretations. Journal of American History 4 : 1195–1215.Google Scholar
Trouillot, M-R. 1995 Silencing the Past : Power and the Production of History. Beacon Press, Boston.Google Scholar
VanPool, C. S., and VanPool, T. L. 1999 The Scientific Nature of Postprocessualism. American Antiquity 64 : 35–53.Google Scholar
Watson, R. A. 1976 Inference in Archaeology. American Antiquity 41.58–66.Google Scholar
Weinberg, S. 1996 Sokal's Hoax. New York Review of Books 8 August : 11–15.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. 1987 False Models as Means to Truer Theories. In Neutral Models in Biology, edited by Nitecki, M. H. and Hoffman, A., pp. 23–55. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1986 Bootstrapping in Un-Natural Sciences : An Archaeological Case. In PSA 1986, Vol. I, edited by Fine, A. and Machamer, P., pp. 314–322. Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1995 An Expanded Behavioral Archaeology : Transformation and Redefinition Twenty Years On. In Expanding Archaeology : A Behavioral Approach to the Archaeological Record, edited by Skibo, J. M., Walker, W. H., and Nielsen, A. E., pp. 198–209. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1996 The Constitution of Archaeological Evidence : Gender Politics and Science. In The Disunity of Science : Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, edited by Galison, P. and Stump, D.J. pp. 311–343. Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 1999 Why Should Historical Archaeologists Study Capitalists? In Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism, edited by Leone, M. P. and B. Potter, P. Jr., pp. 23–50. Kluwer, New York.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 2000 Rethinking Unity as a “Working Hypothesis” for Philosophy of Science. Perspectives on Science. In press.Google Scholar