Read the summary and the most important questions on Archaeological Theory

• 1 Induction - Deduction - Abduction

  This is a preview. There are 9 more flashcards available for chapter 1
  Show more cards here

• What is the difference between deduction and induction?

  Deduction: the conclusion is certain
  Induction: the conclusion is probable

• What are the views of Popper?

  • You can falsify a conviction by doing one observation 

  ->  criticized for this very atomistic approach to knowledge.
  
  

  • ''Doing science is about having one proposition and one state of affairs in reality and then is it falsified or corroborated''

• What were critiques on Popper?

  • There are many ways of reasoning around a falsification
  • Falsification is never a one-on-one thing (one proposition and one state of affairs)
  • It is a holistic thing = a body of knowledge
  • There is always a tinkering somewhere in this body of knowledge

• With what concepts does abduction deal?

  • Equifinality
  • Underdetermination

• 2 Archaeological observation is theory-laden

  This is a preview. There are 18 more flashcards available for chapter 2
  Show more cards here

• What is the problem of induction?

  • There is no complete certainty that the next time the result is the same
  • The truth is hard to come by - Popper 

• Who had the logical positivism view?

  Hume

• Who's view is an example of a relativism view?

  Kuhn

• What makes the many paradigms stronger? (present-day view)

  • All the paradigms come across corroboration and falsifications of their predictions and they handle this corroboration -> make them stronger
  • Falsifications can make them weaker but there is no such thing as instant reality or instant falsification

• What is the critique on the view of Putnam?

  • Too naïve
  • Too atomistic
  • Too holistic 

• A holistic, constructive, moderately realist, pluralist view of archaeological research (present day view?)

  • The specific paradigm not only defines the meaning of terms, but also what is considered to be:
  • A solid argument
  • A good reason to revise a view
  • Reliable empirical evidence
  • What the subject matter of the particular discipline should be in the first place