Every profession has its own way of how to solve a problem (see my article https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319644185_Thinking_like_an_engineer and my question https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_think_like_an_engineer ). They may be some overlap in the way they think, but the thinking methods are distinctly different.
The way archaeologists think is fascinating. They find a button in a dig and tell you which cloth the button belongs to, what was the color and material and who wore it. Even if the person who wore it had a hole in the seat of his pants. Amazing; all from a single button- as it looks from the outside.
From the inside, archaeologists say that their deduction is based on other historical finds and facts, not on a single button. Thus, you should expect that two archaeologists infer entirely different things from that single button; drawing from their baggage.
If an engineer or a medical doctor attempt to spin a yarn, they need a lot of data and well verified and grounded theory. There is a methodology, known as evidence-based practice, which uses a lot of data and calculations to establish a fact. There is little room to inject opinion. By the way, this known as “expert opinion”
Archaeology, engineering, law, and medicine are all fact-based profession. Thus, they can benefit from each other practice.
Question is can we borrow ideas from archaeology and short cut the deduction process in their profession?
This is thought provoking but I would say there is enough deduction in medicine already, and due to the multiple differentials ones opinion of what is likely is often at the forefront of at least my own decision making
Like a skeptic. We don't believe it until we see it in the ground. David Hurst Thomas ground truth or ground proof.
Hi Dominic,
Thank you for your post.
According to https://socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php
" In logic, we often refer to the two broad methods of reasoning as the deductive and inductive approaches. Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. ... Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories".
Deduction is more sound than induction.
Hover, in archaeology i believe they use mostly inductive logic, i.e. they generalize a single find. I am waiting an archaeologist correct me.
Hi Mr Sandy,
Thank you for your prepossess. Would you please expand your answer?
As I gather, you are an anthropologist, would you compare and contrast the way an anthropologist think with thinking approach of other professions.
Other people read a history book and believe it. Archaeologists read it but believe nothing until they see it in the ground. History tells us that slaves were fed by their masters and did not own firearms. Dr. Charles Fairbanks dug slave cabins and studied the documents. By the huge amount of work documented he knew they ate a lot of calories. But there wasn't that much food bought by the plantations. Gun flints were found in the cabins; slaves hunted and raised food, etc. (Other People's Garbage video).
Archaeologists can envision what could lay out of site, but not out of their minds. Edward S. Big Ed Rutsch (1936-2002) knew from a lifetime of digging on Tel New York, that one had to be absolutely sure one had reached culturally sterile subsoil. That is why he discovered the NYC African Burial Ground National Monument about 25 ft (7.5m) below West Broadway.
Dear Mr Sandy,
Thank you for your detailed response.
How can I get your colleagues in archaeology add their opinion?
Regards
Sirous Yasseri
Dear Mr Sandy,
Thank you for your detailed response.
How can I get your colleagues in archaeology add their opinion?
Regards
Sirous Yasseri
Archaeologists deal with artefacts, that is, things made or affected by human actions. That may involve a very careful look at the artefacts: what are they made from; where exactly were they found; how do they resemble artefacts found in other places; what might they have been used for; how are they associated with other artefacts or natural processes; and so on. These days, such questions may involve all sorts of elaborate tests and analyses.
Armed with as much information as possible about an artefact, the archaeologist — or more properly the historian or prehistorian — can then ask: what do I imagine is the most probable reason that humans might have made or caused this artefact to be in this place? Note that, firstly, the question involves the human past — what have we as a species or as individuals done or thought or dreamt on this planet; then, secondly, any answers depend on the imagination and experience of the person asking the questions; and, lastly, it is all a matter of probability, even if some matters are so likely that they can be taken as 'facts'. Conventional historians go through much the same process with written documents.
Dear Dr Macknight
Thank you for your contribution.
From your writing I understand that archeologists look for patterns to make a judgment.
I agree with Macknight. But this is also beyond an exercise in philosophy working Kiejegaard, Hume, Kant and so on, regarding judgement and evidence. I’m an amateur at present, partial to flashcard answers to many questions, with maybe a thousand journal readings at best this year, so, am willing to only suggest that each still carries their own approach to subject and method, with results indicating proficiency of matching the two together to make points more clearly evident. “Skeptic” is merely the most pragmatic (and recommended) starting point for all method approaches, if one plans on humoring the critics and mathematicians. Apparently, when sitting in a room full of skeptics, one needs to be proficient with the process of proofing everything. Thus, I would have to say that Archeologists are typically survivors, or expert, with process explanations, and they think — or learn to think accordingly. It still doesn’t make them correct in all instances, just more frequently practiced at dodging the occasional ill-fitting cap and staying focused on objectives.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking