It's also unlikely that I personally value only science & despise examining cultural myths for meaning and affective value. Seeing that I study how Christian narratives were made meaningful by women (1300-1700) rather than science. https://twitter.com/ThomasFriedman_/status/929435513932546048 …
-
-
Don't see why not, with the appropriate methodology, at the very least it could be.
-
Yeah, to sone extent. Postprosessual archaeology is trying some of the same thing and those poor fuckers don't even have contemporary written sources to rely on :] Subjective knowledge through methodology is a bitch, but not an utterly unreasonable one. Takes rigour tho.
-
What's wrong with the processual kind?
-
They were had bit too much logical positivism. Though there was in theory basically no limit to what scientific rigor & methodology could reveal of humans, but still shyed from what they mocked as 'paleopsychology' by largely focusing on social structures and materialism.
-
*thought But they gave us middle range theory, better methodology and more scientifically rigorous use of hypothesis and theory for postprosessuals to build on, so can't be too harsh!
-
But this post-processual thing is entirely subjectivist! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-processual_archaeology …
-
Eh, it's a bit complicated. Ppl see it as more of an addition to prosessualism despite the ppl behind it wanting their own subjectivist postmodern hogwash to rule supreme. Instead, it's mostly been married with prosessualism in modern archaeology.
-
Burn the heretics before it spreads...
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.