Archaeological programmes: Notes on epistemic diversity

Staša Babić

doi:10.4312/ars.17.2.9-20

Avtorji

Staša Babić Univerza v Beogradu, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za arheologijo, Srbija

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4312/ars.17.2.9-20

Ključne besede:

arheološko sklepanje, epistemične norme, paradigmatski obrat, raziskovalni programi, Imre Lakatos

Povzetek

V članku je predstavljen kratek pregled konceptov preučevanja sprememb epistemičnih standardov v arheologiji in njenega potenciala v bodočnosti. Opozarja na pomanjkljivost pogoste rabe Kuhnovega koncepta paradigem pri razvrščanju arheoloških teoretskih pristopov v tri izrazito ločene in izključujoče se faze. Namesto tega predlaga koncept raziskovalnih programov filozofa znanosti Imreja Lakatosa, ki se zdi bolj produktiven za vrednotenje različnih pristopov v arheologiji in s katerim je možno ohraniti različnost epistemičnih idej in se tako bolje soočiti z izzivi, ki so imanentni arheološkim dokazom.

Prenosi

Podatki o prenosih še niso na voljo.

Literatura

Agassi, J., Science and its History. A Reassessment of the Historiography of Science, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Boston, Springer 2008.

Babić, S., Metaarheologija. Ogled o uslovima znanja o prošlosti, Belgrade, Klio 2018.

Babić, S., Teaching STEM in Archaeology – Notes from a Devil’s Advocate, in: STEM in Heritage: Procedures, Methods, and Teaching, (ed. Vuković, J.) Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, 2022, p. 83–90.

Babić, S., Archaeological theory at the edge(s), in: Archaeological theory at the edge(s) (ed. Babić, S), Belgrade: Faculty of Philosophy 2023, p. 7–12.

Babić, S., Plus ça change? Balkan archaeology in search of identity, Ex Novo 8, 2023 (in preparation).

Bourdieu, P., Science of Science and Reflexivity, Cambridge, Polity Press 2004.

Chapman, R., Wylie, A., Evidential Reasoning in Archaeology, Bloomsbury Academic Publishing, London 2016.

Crellin, R. J., Change and Archaeology, London, New York, Routledge 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315232850

Currie, A., Rock, Bone and Ruin. An Optimist’s Guide to Historical Sciences, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11421.001.0001

Fagan, M., 2010. Social Construction Revisited: Epistemology and Scientific Practice, Philosophy of Science 77, 1, p. 92–116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/650210

Franklin, A., Perović, S, Experiment in Physics, in: The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Ed.) (ed. Zalda E. N.), 2016 https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/physics-experiment/.

Fuller, S., Knowledge. The philosophical quest in history, London, New York: Routledge 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315744551

Harris, O.J.T., Cipolla, C., Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium. Introducing Current Perspectives, London, New York: Routledge 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315713250

Havstad, J.C., Smith, N.A,. Fossils with Feathers and Philosophy of Science, Systematic Biology 68 (5), 2019, p. 840–851. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syz010

Kristiansen, K., Towards a New Paradigm? The Third Science Revolution and its Possible Consequences in Archaeology, Current Swedish Archaeology 22, 2014, p. 11–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37718/CSA.2014.01

Kuhn, T., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press 1962.

Lakatos, I., Criticism and the methodology of scientific research programmes, Proc. Aristotelian Soc. 69, 1968, p.149–186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/69.1.149

Lakatos, I., Falsificationism and the methodology of scientific research programmes, in: Criticism and the growth of knowledge (eds. Lakatos, I, Musgrave, A.), Cambridge University Press 1970, p. 91–196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171434.009

Latour, B., “Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World”, in: Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science (eds. Knorr-Cetina, K, Mulkay, M.), London, Sage 1983, p. 141–170.

Longino, H., Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry, Princeton University Press 1990. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691209753

Longino, H., The Fate of Knowledge, Princeton University Press 2002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691187013

Lucas, G., Understanding the Archaeological Record, Cambridge University Press 2002.

Lucas, G., The paradigm concept in archaeology, World Archaeology 49, 2016, p. 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2016.1252688

Milosavljević, M., How Archaeological Communities Think? Re-thinking Ludwik Fleck’s Concept of the Thought-Collective According to the Case of Serbian Archaeology, in: Communities and Knowledge Production in Archaeology (eds. Roberts, J., Sheppard, K., Hansson, U., Trigg, J.), Manchester University Press 2018.

Musgrave, A., Pigden, C., Imre Lakatos, in: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 Edition), (eds. Zalta, E.N., Nodelman, U.) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/lakatos/&gt.

Olsen, B., Shanks, M, Webmoor, T, Witmore, C., Archaeology – The Discipline of Things, Berkeley, University of California Press 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520954007

Thomas, J., Archaeology and Modernity, London, Routledge 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203491119

Thomas, J., Why “The death of archaeological theory”?, in: Debating archaeological empiricism: the ambiguity of material evidence (eds. Hillerdal, C., Siapkas, J.), Routledge 2015, p. 11–36.

Weinert, Friedel. 2009. Copernicus, Darwin and Freud. Revolutions in the History and Philosophy of Science, Oxford, Blackwell 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304930

Wylie, A., Thinking from Things. Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology, 2002, Berkeley, University of California Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520935402