Archeology as a science

[Cheomesh]

I have not posted here in a while, but I thought I throw this out there to the guys who keep up in the general science world.

Do you consider Archeology a "science"?

I have heard a few people claim that Archeology is a general waste of money, resources, manpower, etc., and serves no real purpose in our society (plus other stuff).

What do you all think?

 

[Krynn72]

Hell fycking yes.

 

[theotherguy]

Absolutely, why wouldn't it be?

 

[Que-Ever]

Yes. And paleontology ftw.

 

[Jintor]

Speaking as a student of Ancient History, **** yeah.

 

[Pesmerga]

Any science dedicated to discovering the truth in the physical universe is a worthy endeavor.

 

[delusional]

the only difference between archeology and science is there are little, if any, absolutes in archeology.

 

[mindless_moder]

the only difference between archeology and science is there are little, if any, absolutes in archeology.

could you name a few absolutes in science ? ....

 

[Narvi]

Yes we can. That's what mathematics is all about.

Pi, ****ers. Eat it. EAT YOUR ****ING PI.

Oh, and archaelogy is an applied science, since it uses scientific methodology in examining ancient ruins.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Of course it is a science.

 

[Cheomesh]

Hm, who voted no? :|

delusional, there are plenty of absolutes in Archeology.

 

[Viperidae]

Excuse me what's going on here.

 

[Jintor]

Hm, who voted no? :|

delusional, there are plenty of absolutes in Archeology.

Well, more correctly, there's a lot of near-absolutes backed up by mountains of evidence.

Though those mountains of evidence could ALL BE WROOOONNNNNGGGG!

 

[bbson john]

A fundamental question: what is science?

 

[Tagaziel]

Typical response of Dawkinsians and HL2.net: anyhting that isn't religiun.

 

[jimbo118]

I study Archaeology in uni why God why?

 

[Mr Stabby]

Only the natural sciences biology, chemistry and physics are true sciences, engineering and archeology are appliances of sciences and therefore scientific but not actually sciences.

 

[[Matt]]

ding ding ding.... ladies and gentlemen we have a winner!!!

 

[Raziaar]

The science of playing in the dirt.

 

[Druckles]

Yes, why wouldn't it be?

 

[Cheomesh]

Yes, why wouldn't it be?

There seems to be a growing sentiment (at least, it appears to me so) that because Archeology doesn't get us colonizing other worlds or solving energy crisis, or making us live longer, etc; that it shouldn't receive fundings as it is "useless".

 

[Jintor]

Well, good-bye literary department.

 

[Eejit]

Well it's at least as scientific as things like political science, psychology etc. but I wouldn't consider it to be on par with the "big 3".

 

[Druckles]

There seems to be a growing sentiment (at least, it appears to me so) that because Archeology doesn't get us colonizing other worlds or solving energy crisis, or making us live longer, etc; that it shouldn't receive fundings as it is "useless".

There are people who claim that Computer Science is not a science, even though it does help us acheive those things. A science is something which helps us to obtain more knowledge. It's just a different form of science from most. I'd class it with History.

 

[Emporius]

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

 

[Eejit]

Wait, what criteria are you guys using to judge whether something is a science?
My main one is probably the degree to which scientific method is used.

 

[Mr Stabby]

There are people who claim that Computer Science is not a science, even though it does help us acheive those things. A science is something which helps us to obtain more knowledge. It's just a different form of science from most. I'd class it with History.

By that definition almost all academia is science. How is history a science?

 

[Druckles]

By that definition almost all academia is science. How is history a science?

Yes.

5char

 

[Mr Stabby]

Thats an extreme oversimplification of the definition of science IMO.

 

[Druckles]

Google - "define: science"

• a particular branch of scientific knowledge; "the science of genetics"
• skill: ability to produce solutions in some problem domain; "the skill of a well-trained boxer"; "the sweet science of pugilism"

• Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

It comes from the Latin for "knowledge" and it's just that. Writers such as Descartes referred to "sciences" as anything that aided someone's knowledge.

Physics, Chemistry and Biology are often referred to as "the sciences", but in the strictest sense, they are not alone. I mean, who's to determine that they're science and something else isn't? There's absolutely no reason for Computer Science to not be included with them. I mean, biology? Who ever decided that was a "science"?

 

[Mr Stabby]

What new information does Computer science add which isn't already a part of physics or maths. I think it's the core principles which are the proper science, and the core principles of Computer science are within physics and mathematics.

 

[Druckles]

What new information does Computer science add which isn't already a part of physics or maths. I think it's the core principles which are the proper science, and the core principles of Computer science are within physics and mathematics.

The core principles of Physics are within Maths.

The core principles of Biology are within Chemistry and Physics.

Biology doesn't do anything that Computer Science doesn't do.

And Computer Science is alot more than just Physics and Maths. Sure, some of the core principles of the hardware come from the Electronics side of Physics, but Computer Science takes the Information part to a much more specific level.

The other side of Computer Science, the software, can be said to tie into Decision Maths, but again, it goes alot further than that, and there are parts of it which don't have a root in Maths.

If you're going to be so specific, I don't think Biology should be a science at all, it's just like Archeology! The only reason you think it's a science is because you've been brought up that way. It's very similar to History in the fact it analyses who we are.

 

[CptStern]

I have not posted here in a while, but I thought I throw this out there to the guys who keep up in the general science world.

Do you consider Archeology a "science"?

I have heard a few people claim that Archeology is a general waste of money, resources, manpower, etc., and serves no real purpose in our society (plus other stuff).

What do you all think?

is this a real thread or are you just pulling our collective legs ..I demand you walk up to these people and kick them in the nutsack for being outright retarded

 

[Mr Stabby]

The core principles of Physics are within Maths.

Not all the core principles, maths doesn't cover magnetism or the atom at all, physics does have it's own unique principles.

The core principles of Biology are within Chemistry and Physics.

Biology is the study of living things, that makes it unique from physics and chemistry

Biology doesn't do anything that Computer Science doesn't do.

And Computer Science is alot more than just Physics and Maths. Sure, some of the core principles of the hardware come from the Electronics side of Physics, but Computer Science takes the Information part to a much more specific level.

It goes into extensively more detail, but more detail in ideas founded in physics and maths, same as all engineering.

The other side of Computer Science, the software, can be said to tie into Decision Maths, but again, it goes alot further than that, and there are parts of it which don't have a root in Maths.

What parts? Computation relies completely on maths.

If you're going to be so specific, I don't think Biology should be a science at all, it's just like Archeology! The only reason you think it's a science is because you've been brought up that way. It's very similar to History in the fact it analyses who we are.

History is inaccurate and open to interpretation there is no consensus on much of history, due to the lack of empirical facts. Biology is the study of life, which has principles unique enough to warrant it being a science. Chemistry technically hasn't got any core principles, chemistry is the study of electron bonds between atoms, chemistry however predates the knowledge of the atom, so it gets away with being a core science.

 

[Barney_Calhoun]

I'm studying Archaeology at uni. Whether or not you view Archaeology as a science is largely down to if you take a structuralist, processualist or post-processualist view.

 

[Saturos]

Ask the scientists at UAC corp if archeology is useless. I'm sure the answer you would get is a resounding no. Seriously though, many important scientific discoveries was because of archeology. Maybe oneday, we'll discover the secret mathematical concepts of space-folding teleportation thanks to the discovery of ancient ruins on Mars left to us by our ancestors. :thumbs:

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Sounds familiar...

 

[Saturos]

Sounds familiar...

Com'on! Surely you didn't hate Doom3 that much to forget that plot cameo.

 

[Cheomesh]

What new information does Computer science add which isn't already a part of physics or maths. I think it's the core principles which are the proper science, and the core principles of Computer science are within physics and mathematics.

Software Algorithms, perhaps? File types, etc.

And biology is a science. Anyone who underestimates the usefulness of cellular function has never had cancer before.

-----

Anyways, Archeology is awesome.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Com'on! Surely you didn't hate Doom3 that much to forget that plot cameo.

Actually, apart from the ansectors bit, I was thinking of mass effect