Somebody posted this on Facebook. As we know, Richard Horton is a fierce upholder of scientific standards, and he is using his detailed experience of medical research to make a broader point. We recognize this only too well ---- and what is most sad is the gullibility of the media and the members of the public who increasingly fail to read or scrutinise published research and thus allow complete tosh to be represented as "the truth."
This is somewhat relevant:
Yes, very depressing. Some years ago I worked in the field of medication compliance and the Oxford Centre for evidence based medicine reviewed over 2000 "studies". Only a handful met their requirements for a real evidence base.
ReplyDeleteMore recently I just finished listening to "Spoon fed" by Tim Spector. He talks extensively about the myths constructed by the food industry about our diet - many supported by studies they have commission.
In comparison British Archaeology is an innocent abroad, although they seem to have learned a lot from studying with the wrong teachers.
Incidentally, the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine was quite informative in the early days of Covid. They have been muzzled effectively - something to do with grants I believe.
I agree completely and whole heartedly with this article. British Academic Archaeology has abandoned true Science, and has invented it’s own kind of science, Archaeological Science.
ReplyDeleteI studied Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, both at school and university. I find that many archaeologists are frightened by scientific determinism, they see it as some kind of black magic and say things like “How do you know that?”. I see echoes of a situation that I found in my 6th form school education. Two camps who think in completely different manners, the Arts and the Sciences.
The “Post-processualist” school,
(Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-processual_archaeology#Origins_in_Britain )
was created in the late 1970s and early 80s, is responsible for this change away from science. It was declared that processes had been studied to completion and that the future of archaeological interpretation lay in theoretical social anthropology, e.g. Ian Hodder’s “Entanglement” theory. This is because they could not handle science and technology and wished to escape from it.
In my opinion they have run British Archaeology “off the road” of scientific, forensic analysis and into the quagmire of theoretical Social Anthropology.
Often new ideas are found to be unacceptable to some archaeologists because those ideas are too technological for the archaeologists to grasp. For an academic this is a serious problem, for if they cannot understand the ideas, they cannot teach them and so those ideas are are useless. If those ideas also go against the “received wisdom” then it is a challenge to their authority and must be combated. The academics disregard, deny, deride, and if they can, they discredit those ideas. When they cannot understand the ideas they cannot fault them and therefore resort to “ad hominem” attacks on the people with these unacceptable ideas.
Here are three examples.
Alexander Thom's Megalithic Yard.
Mike Baillie's Cometry Catastrophe's.
Merryn Dineley's Neolithic Brewing.
I have heard a famous archaeologist propose that archaeology needs more science.
I suggest that it needs to abandon “archaeological science” and embrace true science.
Thank you Graham -- for those interesting observations. I think we are agreed and also saddened by the distance that has opened up between storytelling archaeologists who are hunting for "evidence" that will back up their narratives, and scientists who try to work to a system of evidence collecting, interpretation and hypothesis falsification. Yes, maybe this is an Arts v Science thing. as you will see, there are abundant posts on this blog dealing with the strange and unscientific methods of the diggers who are currently -- I assume -- back on the job at their famous "lost circle".......
ReplyDeleteThank you Brian for accepting my opinion. It is an abbreviation of my comment on the “prehistoric-britain” blog “pulp fiction”. You may like my contributions to Merryn’s “ancient malt and ale” blog, “the origins of the viking bathhouse myth” and the “land of milk and honey”, also her recent article in the EXARC Journal Issue 2021/2 “The ancient magic of malt”
ReplyDelete