Dados Bibliográficos

AUTOR(ES) C.S. VanPool , T.L. Vanpool
ANO 2001
TIPO Artigo
PERIÓDICO American Antiquity
ISSN 0002-7316
E-ISSN 2325-5064
EDITORA Elsevier (Netherlands)
DOI 10.2307/2694615
CITAÇÕES 1
ADICIONADO EM 2025-08-18
MD5 1b4d92e44d26751373252c928a1c743a

Resumo

The comments by Hutson and Arnold and Wilkens challenge our 1999 argument that postprocessual research can be scientific. Both critique our characteristics of science. Arnold and Wilkens contend that postprocessual research is never scientific, because postprocessualists do not evaluate knowledge claims using information derived independently from the claims being evaluated. We argue that Arnold and Wilkens' criticisms are based on an inaccurate characterization of our arguments. We also argue that their claim that postprocessual perspectives do not use independently derived knowledge claims when evaluating propositions about the past is simply incorrect. Hutson argues that science cannot be demarcated from other academic research, so determining whether some postprocessual research is or isn't scientific is a moot issue. We argue that while science does share similarities with other academic pursuits, it remains a useful problem-solving strategy that can be differentiated from non-scientific scholarly pursuits. In addition, we agree with Hutson that a 'synergy through disunity' is desirable within archaeology, but again argue that such a synergy will not be produced through an intellectual conflict phrased in terms of 'processual science' vs. 'postprocessual non-science'.

Ferramentas