The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > What good are the shields? Really?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 12-15-2008, 11:57 AM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
I've never found anything "scientific" archaelogy.
It's more...story most of the time then factual and archaeologist are like story tellers or story guessers.

Like that guy from "Bones". I think like him. There nothing precise or accurate about the discoveries when contributing to our knowledge. I respect what we learn but i'ts al very...fuzzy.

Ultimately I'm just relating what other archaeologist have said of colaborating historical writings between the other middle eastern cultures and Egypt. If they is no agreement then my sentiment seems more than justified. Wrong is apparently relative depending on who you trust.
I have studied archeology for two semesters and trust me, it is a science as much as sociology, history, psycholgy, antroplogy or ecomics are science.

But as Belloq said in Raiders of the Lost Arc in his neat accent: "Archeo'lodgie is not an exact sci'ons."

Last edited by Botany Bay : 12-15-2008 at 12:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 12-15-2008, 12:47 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DNA-1842 View Post
What about the ''Natural History'' archaeologists? They are VERY sciencey types. (Being vague...)
Natural history? Who mean the study of rocks and Earth layers?
That's not precise either as far as time extrapolation but what the Earth reveals is more intresting and precise than most ancient cultures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTJG Iferal View Post
Clearly you seem to be under the impression that all archaeologists do is dig up pottery and read inscriptions.

But nevermind; just remember the fact that when inconsistencies (and of course they do exist) in a culture's own historical narrative are found, they are always found BY archeologists.
I guess. I try not to speak with out doing my research but I've been in error before. I'm sure I will be again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
You mean "X never, ever marks the spot"
EXACTLY...it all seems like guess work. But that's hyperbolie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Botany Bay View Post
I have studied archeology for two semesters and trust me, it is a science as much as sociology, history, psycholgy, antroplogy or ecomics are science.

But as Belloq said in Raiders of the Lost Arc in his neat accent: "Archeo'lodgie is not an exact sci'ons."
I've studied ancient cultures too...and it's boring.
I don't think sociology, history or psychology, economic are any where close to science.

I'm not being litteral. Science simply means..."knowledge"
you turn anything into a study or discipline but when we talk science, the need for accuracy and precision we're talking...physics, astronomy, engineering, thermodynamics, biology...

If psychology is a science, if history and archaeolog are a science then so is...religion and astrology. You can study them and they can be disciplined.....

That draws a...WTH....from SaQ every time.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 12-15-2008, 01:23 PM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
I don't think sociology, history or psychology, economic are any where close to science.
OK, let's consider it like this: fine, archaeology is not a "science", but a discipline - much in the same way medicine is not a science, but a discipline. What sets medicine and archaeology apart from things like astrology is scientific methodology.

Archaeologists don't just use old texts to learn about the past and establish dates. They use scientific procedures - for instance dendrochronology, geologic stratigraphy, and radiometric dating. After collecting all this evidence, the Scientific Method is employed to arrive at a conclusion.

When archaeologists do not use the Scientific Method, they turn into people like von Daniken and Graham Hancock. It's the methodology that determines what archaeology is legitimate, and what isn't. And it makes archaeological findings a tiny bit more complex than mere storytelling.
__________________
"People can be very frightened of change." - Capt. James Kirk
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 12-15-2008, 01:33 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Botany Bay View Post
I have studied archeology for two semesters and trust me, it is a science as much as sociology, history, psycholgy, antroplogy or ecomics are science.

But as Belloq said in Raiders of the Lost Arc in his neat accent: "Archeo'lodgie is not an exact sci'ons."
What are ecomics? Perhaps E-comcis? Just teasing
That's some beautifully transcripted French English, BB, I hear his voice right now



Quote:
Originally Posted by LTJG Iferal View Post
OK, let's consider it like this: fine, archaeology is not a "science", but a discipline - much in the same way medicine is not a science, but a discipline. What sets medicine and archaeology apart from things like astrology is scientific methodology.

Archaeologists don't just use old texts to learn about the past and establish dates. They use scientific procedures - for instance dendrochronology, geologic stratigraphy, and radiometric dating. After collecting all this evidence, the Scientific Method is employed to arrive at a conclusion.

When archaeologists do not use the Scientific Method, they turn into people like von Daniken and Graham Hancock. It's the methodology that determines what archaeology is legitimate, and what isn't. And it makes archaeological findings a tiny bit more complex than mere storytelling.
You nailed it. Methodology is relevant in all sciences, be it natural or social ones.
One is easy inclined to believe that the former are exact and the latter are fuzzy at best, but if one thinks about physics, the first model of the atom was that of the atomic nucleus with electrons swirling around it, then quantum theory came and said the electrons are here and here only with a certain porbability, or simply said, fuzzy.
Of course an atom is not as complicated as human beings and there are more different paradigms in a social science than in a natural science, but axioms like Freu's subconsciousness or Smith's invisible hand have lasted longer than the respective models of the atom .. well gladly the BS of an invisible hand is deconstructed since the last 30 years in economics.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 12-15-2008, 03:10 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTJG Iferal View Post
OK, let's consider it like this: fine, archaeology is not a "science", but a discipline - much in the same way medicine is not a science, but a discipline. What sets medicine and archaeology apart from things like astrology is scientific methodology.

Archaeologists don't just use old texts to learn about the past and establish dates. They use scientific procedures - for instance dendrochronology, geologic stratigraphy, and radiometric dating. After collecting all this evidence, the Scientific Method is employed to arrive at a conclusion.

When archaeologists do not use the Scientific Method, they turn into people like von Daniken and Graham Hancock. It's the methodology that determines what archaeology is legitimate, and what isn't. And it makes archaeological findings a tiny bit more complex than mere storytelling.
Okay.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:59 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.