Anthropology: Reconstructing Lost Civilizations - Assignment Example

1A: Basic features of scientific method Scientific method includes some important features that would lead to understanding some basic aspect of scientific practice. These features are: formulating testable predictions, posing accessible problems, requires clear critical thinking, circular path of scientific investigation and important practical aspects of scientific investigation. Scientific method is referred to as a body of techniques used to investigate phenomena, acquire knew knowledge and integrate previous knowledge. For this method to be effective, inquiry method should be based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to precise knowledge of analysis (Feder). Although scientific procedures vary from one field of research to another, particular features distinguish scientific method from other methodologies. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as justification of phenomena, and formulate experimental studies to analyze these hypotheses. This method is subject to peer review for probable mistakes. Scientific method is an incomplete explanation of how science works; it requires creativity, imagination and intelligence. Measurements in this method are usually accompanied by estimates of their uncertainty. Uncertainty is estimated by making repeated measurements of the preferred quantity. Uncertainties may also be determined by considering the uncertainties of individual fundamental quantities that are used. Uncertainty depends on the method of sampling used and the number of samples taken. The full disclosure of this method allows future scientists to reproduce and disapprove some scientific theories. This makes this method become incomplete in explaining how science works (Fagan). Scientific process is circular; it has no end. The progress of science tracks some complicated pattern of many interlocking rounded pathways. This is the great erroneous belief of the scientific method. It can not adequately describe the process of science. With this method, there is no proof in science no matter how many experiments agree with once hypothesis, or how much data one has (Feder). All the concepts in science are basically uncertain. The level of confidence in a scientist’s idea increases as he continues to accumulate evidence; as he accumulates more and more evidence that supports an idea, he becomes very confident in that idea. Good examples of such ideas are Newton’s Laws and atomic structure. Scientists have encountered problems while using scientific method of research. The method has been less successful when applied to investigation of cultural and social phenomenon. There has been a challenge to the applicability of the method to more context sensitive fields. These challenges include the notion of a stable truth; truth cannot be distinguished from its holder (Fagan). This leads anthropologist to search for research approaches that take into account the impossibility of establishing the truth. Language is a basic medium of communication for all disciplines. It is therefore difficult to visualize truth outside inadequacies, limitations and the historical contexts of language (Feder). The reception of knowledge is also becoming a problem to many scientists; researchers are aware of the impact of research upon their public recipient, therefore would consider their work as part of a contribution to a debate rather than version of truth. Knowledge and power is a critique; this method involves viewing the world fro male perspective and making assumptions that the findings apply to female. Researchers are involved in production of knowledge as well as they need heightened awareness of their political position. The critiques that have been launched upon the standard view of scientific method have stressed the problems of knowledge (Fagan). These have led to the researchers to develop approaches and methodologies which take into consideration the problems with scientific method. 1B: Scientific knowledge in archeology Archeologists follow a logical process of Scientific Method to acquire and interpret data. They use the formulated hypotheses and theories to organize their data and justification. They can apply some scientific steps to investigate the past; for instance the information about the occupants of the Hunal tomb at Copan and Tomb 55 in the Valley of the Kings. There are five important steps to be followed by the archeologists, in order to achieve their goals. These steps include: choosing a problem, developing hypothesis, witting procedure, testing the formulated hypothesis and sharing the obtained solution (Fagan). Archeologists are interested in various aspects of how people lived in the past, and who the occupants of those days were. They need to ask specific questions, for example, who occupied Hunal Tomb and who occupied Tomb 55? Did they interact with some other groups before they die? How did they interact? Such questions will enable the archeologist to find the answers to the formulated questions (Feder). Archeologists study books, reports, journals and data that were collected by other archeologists to get information that is comparable to their question. For instance if they want to know the occupants of an area they need to identify remains in the area, and decide if they represent the remnants of certain individual (Berger). The scientific proof through DNA tests reveals that the remains in Hunal tomb possess does not possess any of the previous records. Hunal Tomb contains the burial of the Copan’s dynastic Founder, Yax K’uk Mo. The bones found in the Tomb provide a very important support for the hypothesis that the occupant was Yax K’uk Mo. The analysis shows that the Hunal occupant was not a native to Copan but had spent his early childhood in Tikal region and his final years before his death in Copan. He was a warrior; Hunal bones have kind of serious fractures which healed before his death. Furthermore, the stated occupant led a very tumble and rough life. He was a worrier who seems to have been a leader of the battle. He is one of the people who survived and live to the sophisticated old age. The examination of his remain also shows that he was strong, vigorous soldier but was weakened in his old age(Feder). On the other hand, reconstruction of events has been used to identify the occupant of Tomb 55. From scientific analysis, Tomb 55 mummy was of a man, though others believe that it was for Queen Tiye. The remains show that the man was in his early twenties at death. Several objects that were found in the Tomb bear the names of royal family members this did not yield the anthropological description of the occupant. The most significant interpretation for the scientific analysis is that body from Tomb 55 was Smenkhkare. Archeologists make observations and collect information according the materials and procedures constructed. If the procedures include excavation, the observation and data collected is written and preserved for current and future use. They next look at the data to see if it supports the formulated hypothesis. If it supports, then they can have more confidence that the idea is correct (Feder). Otherwise they will think of alternative explanation and new hypotheses that are testable. Scientific method in archeology has played a very important role in identifying occupants of Tomb 55 in valley of kings and Hunal Tomb in Copan. 2A: pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is referred to as a body of knowledge, principle, methodology or practice that claimed to appear scientific, but does not stick on to the scientific method, or lacks scientific knowledge. In other words, it is any scheme of believe, assertions and methods that are wrongly considered to be scientific (Beger). Pseudoscience is common, especially in archeology. This is because they use concept of intelligent design to block the gaps of the modern scientific knowledge of natural processes. They do so by referring to highly speculative people of the past. As a result, they have successfully put forward an argument from ignorance. In fact they fail to understand that statements of personal skepticism are not evidence. Archeologists claim that some things that are found in nature were artificially made (Feder). For instance, Turin shroud and Stonehenge are claimed by archeologists to be artificial. They don’t accept the real scientific explanation that some things were naturally made. Archeology departs from thinking of naturalism that all authentic scientists have come to accept. With pseudoscience, archeologists often fail to show who made things like Stonehenge. They claim to determine if something was designed even if they don’t know exactly who designed it. Besides, they belief that, the origin of the designers lie inside the realm of biology and not archeology (Berger). They cannot appeal to known natural science in order to explain where the designers originated. The fundamental principles of archeology require that the suspected artifacts were smartly designed even if we don’t know who the designers are, it is apparent that such principles are inconsistent. Examples of pseudoscience include the application of some scientific findings to discriminated objectives. For instance, archeologists found that varying civilizations, dealing with culture of Egypt had built pyramids. Somebody suggested by his opinion that Jews had built the pyramids. The fabrication of the first and the last allegation is plain and therefore offensive for serious science. For this reason, most people would accept this pseudoscience without any question. Another example of pseudoscience in anthropology is Panspermia, elucidating the origin of life. It is a tale of super microbes riding on the meteorites, containing the bad conditions of the outer space for many years, to find the gone paradise at planet earth. Furthermore, those microbes have no clear explanations on how and where they originated. Analogies are mostly used, especially in archeology. They claim that we can always determine if things were designed. The predicament with this argument is that it is a bogus analogue. Other pseudo-scientists argue that there are branches of sciences that specifically deal with artificial interventions. Forensic science, for instance, helps to determine if a person’s death was as a result of natural causes, accident or planned murder (Feder). They also claim that to determine if an artifact was designed intelligently, one has to show that nature exhibits unnatural traits, which contradicts with the reality. It is clear that there is no good evidence for archeology, but there are arguments from ignorance. The stated examples are pseudoscientific because they contradict mainstream models, presents no proof that its claims were derived from a scientific method. Pseudoscience normally cites non-scientific sources like spiritual literature and divine revelation which support pseudoscientific conclusions. 3B: Shroud of Turin Shroud of Turin has been a religious artifact since the middle ages. It is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who is believed by Christians to be Jesus Christ. He appears to be physically troubled in a way consistent with crucifixion. It is reserved in the royal chapel of cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin (Feder). It is presumed by many to be the cloth covered the body of Christ at the time of his burial, while others argue that the relic may postdate the death of Christ by more than a millennium. The shroud and its images remain the subject of the intense debate among scientists, historians, believers and writers (Fagan). People of faith believe that shroud is the cloth that was placed over the body of Jesus Christ when was placed in his tomb, and that the image was recorded during the resurrection. There are many reports of Jesus’ burial mantle, or a picture of his head, but of unknown origin (Berger). However, none of these reports has been associated with the certainty to the recent picture in Turin cathedral. Carbon 14 dating is likely to more scientific; it shows that this artifact was medieval. Laboratory results showed that it was twice as old as carbon dating (Fagan). The analysis that was done by Oxford University showed positive results on carbon dating. It reveals that the shroud is dated from 13th to 14th centuries. Moreover, chemical properties of the sample site indicate a probable seam from a repair attempt that runs diagonally (Feder). Micro-chemical tests find traces of vanillin in the same area, unlike the rest of the fabric. Spectral and chemical analysis shows that the chromospheres of the shroud of Turin’s pictures are complex and conjugated carbon bonds. Generally, shroud of Turin presents more mystery and paradox rather than clarity (Berger). 4A: The Quest for the Ark of the Covenant The ark of covenant is alleged to be the ark that Moses had constructed at Sinai, and is believed to have destroyed the wall of Jericho. King David brought it to Jerusalem and was installed by King Solomon in a glorious temple. According to tradition, the Ark of covenant possessed some extraordinary power that would evoke disasters and overcome enemies. Biblically, the Ark was symbolically last seen in the sky; God’s temple in heaven opened, and within the temple was seen the Ark of his covenant. Some believe that the Ark existed and is hidden somewhere on earth (Fagan). However, common understanding by biblical scholars indicates that the Ark was destroyed when Babylonian troops led by King Nebuchadnezzar ruined the temple. Among different hypotheses, there are those that indicate the ark was taken from the temple just before the arrival of the Babylonians (Feder). An advanced hypothesis shows that the ark was taken by Pharao Shikak from Solomon’ Temple and buried near the Palestinian village. Some other researchers believe that there was no object called the Ark of covenant, but it was a symbolic image that became an item of reference for Christians. Others are convinced that the Ark was an electrical device produced flashing sparks. It was a kind of radio receiver used by aliens fleeting in spaceship to speak their will to the prophet. In this case, the prophet was Moses. He used to communicate with his Lord, but could not see his face (Fagan). This hypothesis seems to be more scientific because the Ark was often surrounded by blinking sparks. Moses could also hear the voice of his Lord but could not see his face. He made use of this device every time he needed help and guidance. This context draws on modern science to explore some of its controversies. Work cited Berger, Peter L. and Luckmann, T. The Social Construction of Reality. London: Penguin, 2006. Fagan, Brian M. The Seventy Great Mysteries of the Ancient World. Thames & Hudson, Ltd, 2001. Feder, Kenneth L. Frauds, Myths & Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. 6th ed. New York: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2008. Read More