tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post5260244111922336415..comments2024-03-28T11:48:17.788-07:00Comments on Publishing Archaeology: GIS, Phenomenological Landscapes, and EpistemologyMichael E. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-48332437566560650972013-01-11T12:57:25.624-07:002013-01-11T12:57:25.624-07:00Yeah, you are right - I do tend to throw around th...Yeah, you are right - I do tend to throw around the term postmodern to refer to non-scientific approaches. Perhaps "interpretivist" is a better term. Even those who ARE explicitly postmodern don't like the term - this is the observation of Ed Soja, that people use the term "poststructuralist" to mean the same thing because it is a "safer-sounding" label.<br /><br />This is a very nice paper on interpretivist approaches in the social sciences:<br /><br />Gerring, John (2003) Interpretations of Interpretivism. Qualitative Methods: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section on Qualitative Methods 1(2):2-6.<br /><br />This paper IS online, but it will take some hassling to find it.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-64444628457042896582013-01-11T10:57:29.220-07:002013-01-11T10:57:29.220-07:00I think this is an interesting and important issue...I think this is an interesting and important issue. I do think, however, one must take care not to lump together all epistemologies that diverge from positivism as post-modern. On the other hand, I am troubled by many phenomenological approaches to landscape, particularly the turn toward romanticism and myth(just read C. Tilley's 94 book). Tilley constructs a monolithic "premodern mind," which is not very different from Levi-Strauss' savages and Levy-Bruhl's ideas in anthropology. Hell, even recent work in science and tech studies (a la Latour), which is getting trendy, contest this absolute difference between modern and non-modern. But that there's the rub. Post-modernism is not epistemological in this sense. It is only a form of consumption and superficial regurgitation. So, as long as Tilley sticks to phenomenology, he is not being post-modern at all. But if he moves from his phenomenological romance to contradictory views without noting the contradiction, then THAT is post-modern. Phenomenology itself is not post-modern. Neither is hermeutics, nor symbolic, nor structuralist, nor, etc., etc. But if one carelessly moves between these sub-paradigms of thought without noting their intra-paradigmatic tensions then one is being a post-modernist. Indeed, I truly believe that whatever post-modernism originally intended to be has shifted to be entirely a form of intellectual consumption centered on self-subjectivity and the superficial qualities of that which is popular. Anyway, thank you for another intriguing post<br /><br />Chris Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-87694450786298051772012-11-30T09:49:43.112-07:002012-11-30T09:49:43.112-07:00Regarding "Creating Consilience," I thou...Regarding "Creating Consilience," I thought Boyer's article and talk were the best of the bunch, but there are good articles by Pinker and Shore and Whitehouse as well, though some of them seem kind of off topic.dogscratcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08604795007817060655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-56797363776540561042012-11-23T12:26:23.334-07:002012-11-23T12:26:23.334-07:00"Archaeology is about facts. If you want the ..."Archaeology is about facts. If you want the truth, go next door to the Philosophy department." -- Professor Indiana Jones.<br /><br />The word "truth" is tricky, since it means lots of different things. If one talks about the absolute, complete, understanding of something, then we will never arrive at the truth. But if one means an empirically correct understanding of some limited domain, then perhaps we do approach the truth. My preference is to avoid the term. I don't know where I heard this, but I like the quote: "Science is not about the truth. It is a method for reducing error."<br /><br />@Sarah, on experience. It all depends on one's goals. If the goals is to explain or understand the past, then my personal experience today is a rather poor guide, of taken alone as the primary method. But on the other hand, all archaeological research is filtered through the personal experiences of archaeologists. These are very relevant and important for how we understand the past. But in my view, such experience is only one of many relevant methods and considerations. If it is elevated to a major part of the analysis, as in phenomenological approaches, then they become "epistemologically subjective" in Haber's terms, and this casts doubt on the resulting interpretations.<br /><br />There is a lot of subtlety here, and many of my posts are done without much subtlety, in order to make a point and to be very clear about basic issues.Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-69949271711705042022012-11-22T10:56:43.404-07:002012-11-22T10:56:43.404-07:00Sarah, why would a 'true understanding of the ...Sarah, why would a 'true understanding of the past' be out of reach? In your last sentence you almost seem to be saying that science should be embraced as a subjective perspective.<br /><br />I believe that a GIS map or the decipherment of the Rosetta stone is actually a true understanding of the past. You would not deny that, would you? Ways of seeing, as you refer to it, seem to be much more part of further interpretation (I'm certainly not denying the importance of that!).Marcusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-27626984058269525052012-11-22T03:26:45.429-07:002012-11-22T03:26:45.429-07:00I suspect that this comment is tangential to the d...I suspect that this comment is tangential to the discussion here because it speaks from experience rather than theory (I find even hard core subjectivists rarely talk truly from the first person). <br /><br />While there are landscape theorists who seem to believe that applying modern experience/subjectivities *correctly* will allow us to understand past experience/subjectivities; I've always preferred work that seeks more simply a richer understanding of place through experience, recognising that many past people will have had such richer senses of place. <br /><br />Coming from that stance, the use of Scientific techniques in GIS is not at cross purposes with this approach, its what I did in my doctorate on BA landscapes in Ireland. The analyses operate as a further enrichment to my experience. I experience the place from my own standpoint, then I break it apart and put it back together different ways. <br /><br />Such a 'way of seeing' is very much part of my own subjectivity, that kind of analytical thinking underpins much modern culture, or which I form a part.<br /><br />As an aside, I don't believe that any approach will lead us to a 'true' understanding of the past. But embracing our own culture (including its scientist stance) allows us a firm place to stand and build interesting and useful understandings of difference.<br />Sarah1965https://www.blogger.com/profile/06881094653302894686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-21171444308122180372012-11-20T16:28:45.792-07:002012-11-20T16:28:45.792-07:00@dogscratcher - I have been meaning to look at the...@dogscratcher - I have been meaning to look at the book Creating Consilience. I've talked about Pascal Boyer's paper previously, but I haven't seen any other parts of the book.<br /><br />Michael E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03942595266312225661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2971081717687612908.post-34661639619809722842012-11-19T12:23:30.965-07:002012-11-19T12:23:30.965-07:00Excellent post. It seems to me that the depth of t...Excellent post. It seems to me that the depth of this epistemological divide isn't recognized by most people in the social sciences. After wading through "Creating Consilience" edited by Slingerland and Collard (2012), it seems like they totally miss this point: since the postmodern turn, the fundamental goals of the humanities are diametrically opposed to those of the sciences. Whereas an implicit goal of science is to clarify and de-mystify the world, it seems as if those in the humanities are seeking to obscure and mystify. dogscratcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08604795007817060655noreply@blogger.com