posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
elanya at 05:07pm on 18/01/2005
elanya at 05:07pm on 18/01/2005I *like* Theory. I like high level theory. It interests me. I think about it on my own time. A lot of people don't. I thik I have at least a vague idea of where I stand, from a theoretical point of view. I am, at the least, a relitavist. Sometimes, I will even Go All The Way... but then people start thinking I'm crazy. Sometimes, *I* start thining I'm crazy, or at the very least, that I'm not being fair to some people, be they alive or dead (if they actually ever existed ;) Sometimes I thik that just at the tip of my brain there is a way that I can mediate my stance, or at least explain it, but I've yet to actually get that far. I'm not sure what it would take to puch me to it. If I *had* to think about it, or if I were to really immerse myself in it, to have a lot of time to read other people's theory... that might help, or it might confused me more. I don't know. I have a nice fat expensive theory book sitting at home on my shelf that I'd like to read, but I don't know when I'll make the time. (See, I know myself, if nothing else :p)
But I'm also scared to *use* theory. I'm scared to express it. I'm afraid that I won't be able to defend myself well enough. For example, I don't like Dr. Babit's pet 'multiple working hypotheses' theory. I think it is kind of silly, at the least. I have actual real issues with it, which I won't go in to if I want to have time to get myself some dinner before class at 6:30 :p I'm thinkig Mexican. Dad just gave me some Christmas Money (thanks Dad!). End tangent. But the point is that I'm afraid that I'm not going to be good at trying to be obvertly theoretical... and yet the idea really appeals to me. Is that wrong? Is it just pretentios? Am I actually capable of it? Am I just talking out of my ass?
And what does it mean for my thesis, which is really kind of old-school. It's making a lot of those old positivist, scienced-based assumptions that I'm often wary of. And yet... do I have a choice if I want to look at pirates? There isn't anything else to work with that I've found. So, how can I take theory, and my approach to it, and happily marry it to what I want to do? Where can I find *my* middle range theory?
This is partly rhetorical, partly so that I can remind myself that I do want to try and keep these things all in mind. But seriously, if you have any advice... I'm listening.
But I'm also scared to *use* theory. I'm scared to express it. I'm afraid that I won't be able to defend myself well enough. For example, I don't like Dr. Babit's pet 'multiple working hypotheses' theory. I think it is kind of silly, at the least. I have actual real issues with it, which I won't go in to if I want to have time to get myself some dinner before class at 6:30 :p I'm thinkig Mexican. Dad just gave me some Christmas Money (thanks Dad!). End tangent. But the point is that I'm afraid that I'm not going to be good at trying to be obvertly theoretical... and yet the idea really appeals to me. Is that wrong? Is it just pretentios? Am I actually capable of it? Am I just talking out of my ass?
And what does it mean for my thesis, which is really kind of old-school. It's making a lot of those old positivist, scienced-based assumptions that I'm often wary of. And yet... do I have a choice if I want to look at pirates? There isn't anything else to work with that I've found. So, how can I take theory, and my approach to it, and happily marry it to what I want to do? Where can I find *my* middle range theory?
This is partly rhetorical, partly so that I can remind myself that I do want to try and keep these things all in mind. But seriously, if you have any advice... I'm listening.
disappointed
Arch theory
I'm a little confused as to why you reject the MWH approach, since really, you only have three options when it comes to using hypotheses:
a) Use no working hypotheses. This, as any pomo will tell you, is impossible; anyone who claims to be 'just looking at the facts' without preconceptions is really deluded. So, this is no good.
b) Use one hypothesis, which you test. This is the classical experimental / positivist perspective. You are ignoring all the details of your data except the one line of argument you want to test. You see if there is evidence to support your hypothesis, and if not, you go back and test some other hypothesis. This works all right in, say, theoretical physics. But in arch, which is mostly non-experimental and where you're stuck with what you dig up, it's a stupid way to go.
c) Use multiple working hypotheses, stated explicitly, so that you are aware in the field/archive/lab that different/contradictory conclusions are supported by different aspects of the recovered evidence. This allows you to present all the possibilities, and then decide which one is most likely, while also explicitly recognizing where there is contradictory information. To me, this seems to be the only sensible way for any archaeologist (or really, for any scientist) to proceed. I dunno, though; maybe what your prof means by MWH is not the same as what I, and all the other theorists who talk about the approach, mean by it.
Re: Arch theory - MWH
It was originally aimed at, well... Science folks. Like, chemists and such, doing hard science. And you're right, that it does offer some advantages, in that it gives you options. The article empasizes the fact that the point of testing hypotheses is to eliminate possibilities. You don't *prove* hypotheses, you disprove them.
The idea here is to create a bunch of different possibilities so that you can eliminate things that are clearly aren't true, and come up with something that best fits the data. The point of it, as the title suggests, is to avoid a ruling theory - to make suire that the researcher isn't so obsessed with one possibility that he can't see anything else.
You start with a null hypothesis... I'll run through a short example
H0: There is no cultural material on this site
H1: There is cultural material on the site
H1a: The cultural material is the result of modern deposition, such as crab traps, or net-hangs (lost, tangled balls of fishing net DEATH!) or what have you (I'm so scientific! ;)
H1b: The cultural material pertains to a shipwreck
....and so on.
But realy, it's all just builiding *towards* a ruling theory.... You really think it is a shipwreck, the other stuff is all just, well, common sense. *I* don't really think that it is the kind of thing that is helpful to make explicit in a research design. I mean, if you go and look, and you'll be able to see. This is sort of an unfair example, but that's only part of my issue.
In fact, I think that in thinking you are laying out *all* the possibilities, you are deceiving, and tricking yourself. While you are giving yourself a set of alternatives, youre limiting the range of possible alternatives to an extent that it is possible not to be able to recognize something that may be completely outside of you exoectations.... does that make sense? I think that it is possible to investigate a problem without *need* no make these things explicit. Once you define something, you're limiting yourself to working within that definition, and I don't think that is a useful approach to tryying to understand a particular issue or problem. I doubt you will agree... but that's how I see it.
Re: Arch theory - MWH
Of course it is impossible to lay out all the possible hypotheses and results (e.g.: H1c: The cultural material pertains to an alien invader with a taste for crab meat and eyepatches). Any MWH perspective I've ever heard of explicitly allows that anomalous results may require you to develop a whole new set of MWH to deal with it. But without explicitness in defining your hypotheses, it's all too easy to ignore interesting questions or other options that *should* be evident even before you start your research. "Let's just dig and not have any preconceptions" is a myth.
While definition is inherently limiting, as you say, this is the essence of theory - the notion that the choice of terms, choice of questions, etc., influence the answers one is likely to find. Given that you can do no work without theory, the next best option is to be very explicit in your theory, to at least let someone else with a different theory have a go at your data with a new set of MWH.
Re: Arch theory - MWH
I'm not ure where I lie on the question of being expicit in all things. I'm sure you are aware of various relativist/pomo social scientists (or...whatever you'd call them :p) who believe that the best way to get around the possibility of bias in work is to make it uber explicit, and the somewhat ridiculous lenghts that some go to in that regard (I was raised in a single parent family in Newark blah blah blah.... and that is how the death of my family dog has affected my interpretation of Tshimshian feasting traditions!). That's somethign I really need to think about more I guess. I kind of think that the theory you are using should be explicit.... but I tend to see a lot of theory as a tool. It is a way of understanding things. , and as you say it influences the answers one finds.
Hmmm... I understand what you are saying, and take your point. I'm not sure I agree that laying out hypotheses is necessary to see things that should be evident. Not for everyone anyway, but I can see how, in that sense, they are a useful tool. I'm not convinced that they are necessary though, or that you can't do good research without them, which is probably something Dr. Babits would disagree with ;p
Definition/limitation as the essence of Theory
I wonder, if I were to say that I see postmodernism as being my personal paradigm, or philosphy... It represents my world view, but that I reject it as a useful applicable working theory in social science and archaeology, if that would make sense, or if it is just a copout? I really don't believe that there is an absolute truth, or that only one understanding that is even *desirable*. I think that this leave me open to select the most useful tool, or theory, for examining a particular problem, or issue.
This would probably be more coherent if I hadn't have 6 hours of class today, three of them all at once, and if it weren't 11 PM :P
Anyway, I don't know if you will give me any more replies, but I have quite enjoyed this dialogue to date :)
Re: Definition/limitation as the essence of Theory
I think one thing you've got to get clear to yourself is whether relativism or postmodernism is your underlying personal philosophy. These are not the same thing to any extent. Postmodernism is not really a theory - maybe it's a 'worldview' or something, which sometimes but not always encompasses relativism, depending on what author we're talking about. Relativism is of course much older than pomo, and seems to reflect what interests you the most about postmodernism, so you may want to be more specific.
Having said that,if you have really decided that relativism serves you well in your archaeological research, I have any number of bones to pick with you. :)
Re: Definition/limitation as the essence of Theory
But... I *believe* in relativism, but it is only one of the things about postmodernism that Ibelieve. I also believe that, to steal a chunk from existentialism, choice is really important when it comes to interacting with the world. You may or may not all be constructs of my imagination, but I chse to believe that isn't precisely true, or at least, that that doesn't mean I don't owe you all some degree of respect ;0 he choice comes in to play when thinking about other things to, like morality, but I won't get in to that atm. Previous tests have demonstrated that I'm pretty permissive, which is definitely a reflection of my acceptance of relativism, anyway ;)
Since I believe in it, it think it is important to keep relativism in mind, especially when considering the kinds of questions that you mentionned. maybe I can't understand perfectly what someone was trying to get across in a study or article (or conversation ;p), but I still need to interpret that based on my own experience so that I can incorporate it into my own understanding/experience. trying to understand author bias is part of that. However, because I have choice, I can still accept or reject someone else's conclusions, and refute them, based on what I chose to believe and what I understand. I am still allowed to think that Erick von Danniken or however you spell his bname is full of crap ^-^
I haven't really figured out how or if I thik that relativism is a concept that can usefully be *applied*. I think it is something that just *is*, but that doesn't mean it is going to help me understand things, or answer a question. It is just important tobe aware that not every person or culture thinks the same way or acts the same way for the same reason. I don't really think that is something that can be denied.... but I'm not sure how it can be *applied*, either.
Man, I'm going on here anyway, despite my attmpts! Anyway, I also think that science shouldn't necessarily be our only framework for trying to understand the world. It is a useful theory/tool, but it isn't all being. It depends on the kinds of things you want to try an understand.
Re: Definition/limitation as the essence of Theory
As for the question of the utility of science, it really depends on how you define the term 'science'. If you mean experimental methods, hypothetico-deductive reasoning, etc., then yes, absolutely, we have to recognize the limits as well as the value of these narrowly-defined approaches. But if we take a broader definition, one that includes historical research, for instance, we get a set of principles that I think you must endorse as fundamental:
1. Think of new ways of approaching questions.
2. Doubt and criticize all findings.
3. Find ways to confirm or disconfirm propositions.
4. Do not invoke God or God-surrogates.
Once you do this, the barrier between science and humanism falls to pieces and really comes down to the use of different methods for different questions.
Re: Definition/limitation as the essence of Theory
As for your statement that "If you really believe that all facts about a situation are equally relevant to explaining the past, then you simply cannot do any research whatsoever," I'm not sure if I agree. I think that most facts about a situation can offer new insights. All the patterns that we come up with are screening tools, in a sense. They can only examine part of an issue. I have yet to see a suggested pattern that really takes into the account all of the complexities of actual human experience, and I don't know if one is possible. But as long as different resaerchers are seeking new approaches and offering new kinds of interpretations of siatuations based on different sets of data or facts, then we can start to get a picture of how they all fit together. I think it is hard enough for someone to understand what is going on in their own lives half the time, and that's one one tiny fragment of a culture! It is a bit much to expect any individual social scientist to be able to create a total picture. So I think it is important to have different people considering dfifferent facts, and that they can all offer something useful to a situation. I just don't think it is useful for an individual researcher to tackle a question without narrowing their scope to something more managable. It isn't useful or helpful.., let alone *possible* to consider all of the facts at once.
As for your broad definition of science, yes, I do have to endorse it. But it isn't what I think of as science, necessarily - what comes to mind for me is your narrower definition. Is that really how you conceive of science?
Re: Definition/limitation as the essence of Theory
I agree absolutely. But the question of what is manageable is open to some debate. Many people would say, for instance, that you can't meaningfully compare all of the systems of written numerals known to have existed from 3000 BC to the present day. Clearly I say they're wrong. Now, am I asking *all* the questions that could be asked about numerals? Of course not. But I'm not claiming to be doing that. I am, however, claiming that for the set of problems I'm addressing, the answers I have found are much, much more reliable than those found in the past, and that while I haven't discovered 'God's own truth', which is a mythical concept anyway, the answers I have found are reliable, that they reflect something other than my mere preconceptions or biases, but that knowledge about reality is possible, even if through a glass darkly.
Re: Definition/limitation as the essence of Theory
Yes, absolutely, 100%. The postmodernist conception of science is a straw man erected using the most egregious examples of positivism to discredit the entire enterprise. Letting experimental sciences dictate to historical ones what science is is entirely improper. In fact, real 'positivism' exists almost nowhere in the sciences. The postmodern edifice was constructed as a critique of a particular kind of mid-20th century physics that was *already* discredited among physicists by the 60s.
Having said all that, there are a lot of advantages to using the standard experimental techniques in certain disciplines for certain problems. But archaeology sure ain't one of them! :)
Re: Definition/limitation as the essence of Theory
Re: Definition/limitation as the essence of Theory
Re: Definition/limitation as the essence of Theory
Re: Definition/limitation as the essence of Theory
Fundamentally, I am and always have been an empiricist. I *like* observables, and I find the internalist, anti-evidentiary approach of many pomos and postprocessualists (Shanks and Tilley, anyone?) to be very wrongheaded. I also hold that the only well-supported hypothesis for how humans came to be what they are is biological evolution. If biological evolution is true, then to some extent, our perceptual mechanisms must reflect reality. The question of *where* they go wrong, how and why - ranging from simple ones like perceptual illusions to complex ones like ideology - is very interesting! But it too has to be studied empirically - this is the entire basis of Foucault's research into early modern power structures, or Latour's on the nature of the modern scientific enterprise.
Re: Definition/limitation as the essence of Theory
I was certainly exposed to PM in my undergrad, but I don't think that I was *brainwashed* into it, not by a long shot. there were too many people in my department who were definitely *not* of that leaning, and those were enthusiastic about it were openminded and critical enough that I don't think they were brainwashed themselves.
heck, Dr. Black is a bloody cultural ecologist! I did a half hour presentation on how to count seeds! (I'm exagerating). I got an A! ^-^
I don;t think I've felt that any one has tried to force theory down my throat, or at least, I've always been in a department that is mixed enough that I was exposed to many different approaches... Maybe that why I have come to see theory as I do, that is, as a tool, a consciously chosen framework within which to operate, which can be selected on various criteria including the nature of the material you are working with, the kinds of issues you want to examine, and even what kind of work has already been done on a particular area/issues beforehand. In fact, I think that last part is especially important.
Re: Definition/limitation as the essence of Theory
You're very fortunate in that your degree in Sheffield was from a historical arch. program. A lot of the pure archy programs there are hopelessly dogmatic in terms of theory.
You raise a very important point, namely that theoretical perspective is determined not only from an externalist position (my gender/race/class/nationality/place in society) but also, largely, from an internalist perspective (nature of the evidence/work to date). Kuhn, in Structure of Scientific Revolutions, focuses on the unexpected ways that an internalist perspective can influence research results. So, it's not just an "external = bias = bad; internal = progress = good" sort of thing; both external and internal influences on theory can lead to good results or bad ones.