tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post5617973540508059004..comments2024-03-28T11:48:17.788-07:00Comments on Publishing Archaeology: In praise of reductionismMichael E. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-2701764879078268462016-11-22T08:07:09.978-07:002016-11-22T08:07:09.978-07:00Here is an example of the kind of anti-reductionis...Here is an example of the kind of anti-reductionist thought I am talking about:<br /><br />“reducing burial goods to measures of wealth ignores the objects’ ritual function and social significance and neglects a valuable opportunity to explore Classic Maya worldview.”<br /><br />Scherer, Andrew K. 2015 Mortuary Landscapes of the Classic Maya: Rituals of Body and Soul. University of Texas Press, Austin, p. 105.<br /><br />There are 2 problems with this statement. First, it is anti-reductionist. Second, it ignores or rules out problem-oriented research. What I mean is that this statement seems to assume that applying one method or approach to a batch of data, prevents one from applying others.<br /><br />In my epistemology, Scherer's statement is false as written. There are many different research questions that can be applied to any set of data, each with different methods, assumptions, benefits, and costs. The application of one approach does not rule out another (unless we are dealing with special circumstances, such as destructive analysis of chemical composition of an artifact).<br /><br />It seems that Scherer does not like reductionist methods (such as wealth indices), and wants to rule them out in favor of studying ancient worldview. Good luck with that!Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.com