It sounds like a rhetorical (i.e., sales) move to me.

I feel however, that the Philosophy of Science will always be a necessarily valid topic of discussion, reflection and temporary updating, for all scientific disciplines. But there is an unsuspected field of validity, which archaeologists will have to address at some point, from now on and forward, and try to offer an answer to which we could have access only and possibly in a future of difficult determination. I think about the future of our science, and I feel that we should locate all the archaeologists, instructed and documented by our research especially in the field work, where from —and of course absolutely— of the archaeological materiality already recovered and if it is done necessary, of the increase of this materiality later, it is necessary to achieve, —in a legitimate, accredited and genuine but at the same time committed and not easy theoretical-methodological debate—, a true breaking point, a different position before the meaning of doing Science Social establishing here a starting point from within our own science: Archeology as a discipline. And here the question arises: Is Archeology really a Social Science? Now we all have, as archaeologists, an arduous task to which we must put an end point at some time. The Nature Sciences for a long time have not stopped manufacturing labels, carrying out a continuous chain of academic insults to the Social Sciences, calling them repeatedly as "Soft Sciences". To break this arrogance, which many scientists in the field of Social Sciences observe with a self-satisfied attitude, bowing as vassals to a certain complex Mathematics imperialism, totally renouncing qualitative methods, and not even caring that in some future not too distant despite of everything, they give them a new and insulting academic qualification of "Social Pseudoscientists", it is necessary a forceful answer our towards the Natural Sciences, whose Scientific Methods, by themselves, are not in any way being questioned. What really happens is that those who conceive of themselves as "Hard Scientists" —and intrinsically linked to the manifestations of the Organic and Inorganic Nature— must Understand the emergence in these postmodern times of a hermeneutics of facticity, since they have been until this first quarter of the 21st century, unable to create deep intersubjective bonds between them, all this because in their position in the here and now as Nature Scientists have never imagined, in any way, that their self-styled "Hard Sciences" never they have been "Neutral", because they are always and constantly being calibrated by our current Cultural-Scientific-History that shelters them. Archeology, then, has an opportunity —without impede or detract in any way the undeniable contribution that Nature Sciences offers us— to initiate a valuable debate that communicates Nature versus Culture, or regularity and stability versus Dialectic and Change.

Article Concepciones Filosóficas de la Ciencia y su Desarrollo en el siglo XX

Kindest Regards

Yes it often is, depending on the nature of the science, and whether or not good philosophers of science have given much attention to the particular aspect of science involved. It is useful to have some knowledge of the philosophy of science yourself, so that you can decide whether or not it is appropriate to link it to any particular piece of research, or any published work.