Hello, I have a few simple questions:

Is archaeology a science?

If it is, what kind of science is it?

If archaeology is actually a science, can something be proven using the science of archaeology?

Hmmm... I wasn't aware that science could prove anything. Proof is for Mathematics.

science is about making observations, forming hypothesis, performing experiments, and revising hypothesis, and repeating. Since this is what archaeologists do, then archaeology is a science.

Scott:

...archaeology is a science.

OK, so archaeology is a science. But:

What kind of science is it?

Can something be proven using the science of archaeology?

Science doesn't deal in proof. Proof belongs to mathematics.

I found something that might help you

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=archaeology

You're not answering my other two questions Scott.

If archaeology is a science (Scott says it is), then what kind of science is it?

Can something be proven using the science of archaeology - Yes or No?

Science doesn't deal in proof. proof belongs to mathematics.

If you have a point to make, just make it. I am not a fan of Socratic dialog

I have a few simple questions about archaeology Scott.

If you don't have the answers, that's OK.

Just move along and I'll wait and see if someone else does.

Thank you for your time and your one answer.

Good luck

I'll leave you to JAQ off in private

HomerS wrote:You're not answering my other two questions Scott.

If archaeology is a science (Scott says it is), then what kind of science is it?

It's the science kind of science. What "kinds" within science do you propose there are to choose from?

Can something be proven using the science of archaeology - Yes or No?

Depending on your usage of 'prove' then I'd be happy to say yes.

Finding a human artefact confirms mankind was present at or nearby a site.

Not finding an artefact confirms an artefact was not found.

Perhaps if you expanded on your reasons for asking these questions and the actual topic you wish to pursue people might find they are able to respond?

Fenrir

What "kinds" within science do you propose there are to choose from?

The kinds of science that can actually prove something, and the kinds that can't.

Fenrir

Depending on your usage of 'prove' then I'd be happy to say yes.

So your answer to this question:

Can something be proven using the science of archaeology - Yes or No?

Is Yes?

This thread bodes silly.

Fenrir

What "kinds" within science do you propose there are to choose from?

Perhaps I should ask this:

Is archaeology a "soft" science, or a "hard" science?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

Thommo wrote::popcorn:

This thread bodes silly.

Someone has a script all figured out and is looking for someone to play.

scott1328 wrote:Someone has a script all figured out and is looking for someone to play.

Yes, but you didn't learn your lines did you.

O K

Have fun with that then.

I'll be in the pub with Scott.

Two Bundy's thanks barkeep.

Oh hi Scott, your back. Would you care to answer these two simple questions while your here?

If archaeology is a science (Scott says it is), then:

Is archaeology a "soft" science, or a "hard" science?

Can something be proven using the science of archaeology - Yes or No?

Fenrir wrote:O K

Have fun with that then.

I'll be in the pub with Scott.

Two Bundy's thanks barkeep.

I think I'll just have some good old fashioned Zima with a twist.

Are the questions too hard for you Scott?

HomerS wrote:Oh hi Scott, your back. Would you care to answer these two simple questions while your here?

If archaeology is a science (Scott says it is), then:

Is archaeology a "soft" science, or a "hard" science?

Can something be proven using the science of archaeology - Yes or No?

'Soft' and 'hard' science, besides being rather inaccurate and counterproductive terms, have nothing to do with 'proving'.

As Scott already pointed out, proof is what mathematics is about, not other sciences.
Archeology can 'prove' many things, for example, that people inhabited a specific area in a specific time period.

If you continue to ask for 'proof' after this, you'll demonstrate your intentions are less than honourable and I will report you for trolling.

HomerS wrote:Are the questions too hard for you Scott?

Ooh, nice burn. If this doesn't work you can try reverse psychology, he'll never see that coming*!

*I mean, you know, unless he reads this post. But I'm sure he won't. Scott if you're reading this post, please stop.