next »

TRAILBLAZERS
for students

ArchaeoFind
Archaeology News
Articles
Browse Attachments
Calendar
Downloads
Forum
Gallery
Links
Member Map
Our News Feeds
Submit Article
Tag Cloud
Video Channel

Trailblazers
Play Phaos
Chat
Trailblazers: Virtual Tours
History's Hinge - 'Ain Jalut

[Solomon]

In discussing history, archaeology, myths and legends, we tend to use a variety of terms and arguments which not everyone is agreed on.

Scientific evidence
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theorem or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. Standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences or social sciences.


Theory
The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts, in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Science
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.


Hypothesis
A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon or reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the ancient Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose". The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories.

Evaluating hypotheses

The hypothetico-deductive method demands falsifiable hypotheses, framed in such a manner that the scientific community can prove them false (usually by observation). (Note that, if confirmed, the hypothesis is not necessarily proven, but remains provisional.)

As an example: someone who enters a new country and observes only white sheep might form the hypothesis that all sheep in that country are white. It can be considered a hypothesis, as it is falsifiable. Anyone could falsify the hypothesis by observing a single black sheep. Provided that the experimental uncertainties are small (for example, provided that one can fairly reliably distinguish the observed black sheep from (say) a goat), and provided that the experimenter has correctly interpreted the statement of the hypothesis (for example, does the meaning of "sheep" include rams?), finding a black sheep falsifies the "white sheep only" hypothesis. This sort of example probably provides the easiest way to understand the term "hypothesis".

According to Schick and Vaughn (2002), researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:

    * Testibility (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
    * Simplicity (as in the application of "Occam's Razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
    * Scope - the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
    * Fruitfulness - the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
    * Conservatism - the degree of "fit" with existing recognised knowledge-systems

Making sense of oral history

[Solomon]

Some Thoughts about Archaeological Proof

When the phrase "archaeological proof" is used it carries a lot of weight. It is as if to say that "archaeological proof" means that the conclusion is certain, that somehow it is written in stone. It is like the commercial that reminds us that four out of five doctors prefer some product. How the evidence has been collected is critical. Archaeology is an experiment that cannot be redone. The trustworthiness and reliability of the researcher in the field is essential for other researchers. You have learned something of this in previous lessons. But after the data is collected, how is it interpreted? Is the archaeologist swayed by bias? What is the nature of archaeological evidence and what can we expect to learn from it? Today we will discuss briefly some cautions about the interpretation of archaeological evidence.

First, while archaeological data might appear to be concrete evidence it is always subject to interpretation. All researchers have things that they like and things that they do not like. Usually someone studies something that they like. We tend to pay more attention to the things we like or hope to find and to overlook things that we do not like or would not expect to find. This is natural and both researcher and reader should be aware of this. We also tend to treat with greater care the things that we like. All of this is to say that interpretation of archaeological evidence will be influenced by one's biases. Be on the lookout for this in others and in yourself!

Second, we cannot expect too much from archaeology. While at times concrete, definitive proof that needs no interpretation is discovered, more often that is not the case. Archaeological evidence is often not absolute, but relative. There are a number of reasons for this, the most important, however, is that we frequently do not have all of the evidence. Do you know how many sites are unexcavated? And even at a given site, who would dare to make bold claims until further research was done? The best that can be done is to reconstruct probable interpretations. These need to be carefully checked with all of the available written evidence while further field work is done.

Third, the interpreter must use strict rules of logic while dealing with evidence. For instance an important principle to remember is that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Just because something has not been found, that is not to say that it will not be found. The absence of evidence is obviously a problem, particularly in archaeology. But it is only crucial when it can be proven that one has no hope of ever finding what one is lacking. On the other hand, beware of arguments that are intentionally based on a lack of evidence. That is, some people claim that the fact that there is no evidence proves something. This is called an argument from silence. It must be rejected for lack of evidence. There are a number of rules of logic that apply in a simple way to the interpretation of data. The above are a few common examples.

Fourth, archaeology deals with material answers for questions of chronology. But what does archaeological evidence tells us about dating? Very careful rules of logic have to be applied when interpreting evidence to avoid falling into some big mistakes in dating and interpretation. For instance, the latest dateable item at a particular surface level provides the earliest possible date for that level, assuming that the late item was not deposited at a later date. For example, if coins were found in a sealed layer dating from the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries, that layer must date from the thirteenth century or later. This is not definitive proof, however, that that particular layer dates as early as the thirteenth century. The principle of terminus post quem is that the find of the latest date provides the earliest possible date for a level. Archaeological evidence can also provide a date before which something else must have happened. This is called the terminus ante quem. If layers are sealed by a layer that is dated without question, then everything beneath that dated layer must be earlier. These are two important concepts that are used for establishing the relative chronology of a site. You can imagine how tricky interpretation of data must be and yet chronology is critical for understanding the story of the past.

So the next time you hear someone say that he or she has archaeological proof, be cautious. Remember everything is subject to interpretation. All researchers are biased. We know far less than what has been lost to us through time and what yet needs to be discovered. Socrates, a Greek philosopher, said that the more he learned, the less he felt he knew. That is not to say that we should not be convinced by evidence. There is great reason for certainty, but greater reason and need for humility. Finally, always think clearly and use careful rules of logic.

[moneypenny]

We tend to pay more attention to the things we like or hope to find and to overlook things that we do not like or would not expect to find. This is natural and both researcher and reader should be aware of this.

For instance an important principle to remember is that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Just because something has not been found, that is not to say that it will not be found.

These posts are so packed with profound ideas in a very succinct form, that I, for one, am in awe.   Yes, the main problem in all of this is the fact that we are human.  Scientists learn the Scientific Method early in school, and vow to abide by it, but they are human, and as Solomon has pointed out, it is very hard to accept answers that don't meet with either your expectations or your bias.  Truly non-prejudiced views are actually rare.
  So many reasons to report skewed results, or to actually pre-judge, and make the results meet your pre-judgement.   For instance, a researcher who wants a shipwreck to be a rich Spanish galleon, so searches for the clues that will meet those expectations, even ignoring clues that might show differently, and supposing things that haven't been proven, such as "I believe this ship is sheathed in a protective covering that the Spanish used", and stating this before any lab examination.  Just having an expert make a casual statement like that turns into rumor that grows among the working crew.
 

And even at a given site, who would dare to make bold claims until further research was done? The best that can be done is to reconstruct probable interpretations. These need to be carefully checked with all of the available written evidence while further field work is done.

   I recently posted about the Olmec tablets that were found, the oldest writing in ancient Mesoamerica, and learned that long ago the "experts" had decided that the Mayans were the oldest Mesoamerican culture, discounting the Olmec.  And it wasn't until the early 1900's that they changed this theory.
Yes, it is difficult, and when researching, I am constantly asking myself, "could there be another interpretation?", especially when I am getting comfortable with an interpretation that I like and hope to be the correct one.
  Thank you Solomon for these words of wisdom.
moneypenny

[Solomon]

Thanks Moneypenny, for your appreciation of what I think is perhaps the single most important subject in History Hunters. We need common ground for our discussions and I hope that this thread helps to provide it.

You are right: science cannot be better than the scientists.

Solomon

[Solomon]

I think that... is an opinion and as such, as long as it is held honestly, then the view expressed is honest, whether right, wrong, or somewhere in-between.

It is therefore good when making claims to offer the appropriate qualification. Anything along the lines of In my opinion... and I think that... is clearly a personal position and not masquerading as anything else.

Personally, I am uncomfortable with any belief, because it is often used to cover a matter of faith and faith, is, by definition, blind. When I say that I believe... it is shorthand for I have reason to believe and this allows readers to question my belief: what are the reasons? If, on the other hand, a statement is made as a matter of faith, then no questioning is allowed: it just is.

A problem arises, though, when a matter of faith is present as fact. "Aliens live amongst us" and that sort of thing. This happens more in dealing with religious subjects and is how children come to hold as true a whole range of myths and unsubstantiated beliefs.

My own area of special interest is the period leading up to the First and Second Jewish Revolts and their aftermath. In this, one collides continually with mutton dressed as lamb - faith pretending to be historicity. Some religions made a bad habit of persecuting and even killing those who tried to inject some reason in their theological beliefs. If there is faith, then these murderous liars are damned. I therefore have little patience with those promoting mythology as history.

We meet similar faith-based attempts to argue in historical and archaeological subjects. India right now is in the grip of perverting science to make a case for the historical supremacy of religion. In that particular case, I can see a link directly to the Axis powers of the Second World War and their fascist philosophy. This same belief system also permeated the Arab world and we are in armed combat with it now.

You see, this is not an obscure, academic debate of no relevance to the wide world. Intellectual honesty and rigour are always important. Cowardice has a price, even - especially - when intellectual.

Solomon

[Diving Doc]

Solomon,
a most profound post. History and all the other sciences should be based in hard fact.
Religion is based on belief not often supported by hard fact. Religion often subverts History, as we have seen from the examples you offered, and if we cannot learn the lessons we are bound to repeat the mistakes. Common sense is not common, in our age or any that have preceded.
Cheers,
Doc

[Solomon]

Thank you, Doc.

This prompts me to start a thread on how fascism of the 1930s was exported by France into Arabia and how it remains embedded in the political system there, causing conflict to this day; and how Nazi sympathisers in India during WW2 came to political prominence in modern times and are now, as I said, perverting archaeology to rewrite history in support of their supremacy claims.

Our subject - revealing the treasures of history - is always a target of the extremists and their propagandists. A bit like the Indiana Jones stories. 

Sol

[Diving Doc]

"Our subject - revealing the treasures of history - is always a target of the extremists and their propagandists. A bit like the Indiana Jones stories." LOL.
It is funny to think of it like that but it is also the unvarnished truth as well.

Cheers,
Doc

[Administration]

'The media' is the most popular industry for new entrants these days. Maybe this is part of the culture of celebrity, where one is famous only for being famous. But at the same time, journalists are now among the most disbelieved. Maybe standards are slipping and if so, perhaps this is why.

Situation:
Somebody - A - says something.

Honest report:
"A said something."

No arguing with that, is there? It is incontrovertible.

Dishonest report:
"Something."

In this case, no qualification is given and instead, the something is repeated as if true. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant to the point. In this case, the journalist is merely repeating something that was said by A. This type of reporting is mere gossip, repeating what others have said without regard to the veracity of the statement.

Reporting such as this is also common to the relating of history and that includes treasure hunts. It is one reason why relying on books on a subject, which are usually no more than the opinion of the author, is dangerous. Reading something by somebody is not, in itself, reliable evidence and it rarely provides proof.

Somebody reads a magazine piece - say that somebody claims something - and then reports on what they have read. The honest report is: "The magazine reports something." The less than honest report says: "Something."

History, archaeology and treasure hunting run into mythology regularly. We have a long and detailed account of this in the Oak Island thread. Time and again, the problem is one of people repeating gossip as if it were to be true. When the historian, researcher or investigator questions such a statement, the common responses are:
"Prove it's not true."
"The author is a respected person and should be believed."
"You're just a sceptic."
"Who are you to not believe me".
"You calling me a liar?"
And all that sort of nonsense.

Often, of course, the reporter making an unqualified claim is merely lacking a good, professional training. On the other hand and particularly in our field, the unqualified claim is sometimes part of a hoax, or even a fraud. We must always be on our guard, to both report accurately and to not accept the unqualified reports of others.

[Tayopa]

HI: one question, what is truth, the whole absolute, truth ? 

In my short life I have seen an absolute truth by an accredited scientist, archaeologist or what ever accepted as uncontroversial, yet a few years later no longer acceptable, so in this event what is TRUTH?  What IS  a true reference?

What is the status of someone that accepted the former as true and based his future developments & research upon this, only to find that he had based his belief upon a untruth which was  an accepted truth by his peers at that time. 

What can be stated as a  true, proven, reference?   It would seem that "X" in the physical sciences may,  for a bit,  qualify as a truth,  but true truth is actually non-existant in man's present state of learning and development.

I had the unique experience of participating in WW-2 from start to Finish.  (Guadalcanal  on)  I have seen history as I lived it, rewritten.    "It is no longer true history, yet I see many basing their beliefs,  theories, experiments, and historical revelations using these false histories as a base?   

Whole cultural beliefs have evolved from the first using what was considered a truth at that time.  If this is the case what can one use as true references?   

Till Eulenspiegle de La Mancha

p.s. Political Science and propaganda were my favorite  secondary studies  in College.   I know about half truths. implied truths, inferred truths, and out right lies or simply using statistics to prove a  point.  One can prove almost any thing  by manipulated statistics.

[Solomon]

one question, what is truth, the whole absolute, truth ?

That is a question of very little relevance to science and therefore history and archaeology, where a statement should be properly qualified.

I have seen an absolute truth by an accredited scientist, archaeologist or what ever accepted as uncontroversial

I do not think so. This is more likely to be a misunderstanding on your part of what was claimed, as science talks very little, if at all, of absolute truth. Rather, science talks of hypotheses and theory and always: data.  None of these should be affected by controversy, as you suggest.

It seems to me that your approach to study and ours are radically different and the above post of yours goes a long way to explaining how this is. You have made a number of claims that do not match accepted histories, which I think is great, so long as you can argue them cogently, providing the necessary data to support them.

I will not accept unqualified claims and uncorroborated evidence as fact. Not here, or anywhere else, by anybody.

Your claims are connected with a commercial venture. Would you not agree that you have opened yourself to the charge of having a commercial motive in persuading others to accept your arguments? Unqualified and uncorroborated claims made in support of an attempt to gain money from others is the antithesis of what History Hunters stands for. How you do not appear to know this is beyond me.

Solomon

[Sovereign]

Glad that this has since been settled and that we may expect a book to appear.

I believe all sorts of things, some quite outrageous. If I post them here, I will make sure that I preface them properly and add adequate references to the source material.

[Bart]

Great topic, the very heart of History Hunters, and succinct. I believe an in depth study of faith's impact on history could be quite a revelation. (Yes, there is a humorous aspect to that statement, though un-intended for this purpose.) I suspect that mans inhumanity to man may well be defined as faith (how's that for bias?), but the data needs be collected before observation is applied to it. I suspect it would be the 'stickiest' of all topics here.

- Bart

[Diving Doc]

There is really no need for me to add anything but I will. History Hunters are diametrically opposed to anything uttered falsely in the name of science for the purpose of personal gain or fame. Yes, mistakes are made inadvertently at times but not usually by objective scientific minds. The very pages of History are being rewritten daily as more data becomes available. We ask that you all join with us in objective debate on the topics posted, that together,  we may all find the truth. We fully expect and intend to defend anything we post, either as fact or opinion, with logic, facts, reference, and hard data. This is not a challenge, it is our mission statement.
Cheers,
Doc

[Sovereign]

History Hunters are diametrically opposed to anything uttered falsely in the name of science for the purpose of personal gain or fame.
I hope for more:
History Hunters are diametrically opposed to anything uttered falsely.

When not to believe
When somebody tells you something that goes against everything you know and the only supporting evidence is the person who tells you.
Remind you of anyone?