In the social sciences generally:
Internal rejections of positivism (of naturalist research
programs)
Of “saving the phenomena” and avoiding “unobservables”
and speculation “as if observation and experience by themselves can create
a science”
In psychology, of behaviorism. Look instead for social
and individual causes of behavior
In history (objectivism vs. anti-objectivism): cannot
avoid speculation if only observable data are “legitimate” and the emergence
of specializations (women’s history, black history and emphasis on interpretation
of data, role of perspective and values, etc.)
In sociology, role of theories in determining selection
of facts (and its selectivity); use data as a resource to move beyond the
realm of the observable
In each critique, a role for realism
On the one hand, parallel arguments against empiricism
On the other, insist they are using positivist methodologies
to avoid empiricism
Associating positivism with Hempel’s deductive models of explanation and
confirmation
Aspects of empiricism said to be abandoned:
Inductivist models of discovery and emphasis on data over theorizing
Realism: “The past is knowable” (Binford)
“We are not restricted to thinking in terms of artifacts alone” (Renfrew)
Publication of New Perspectives in Archaeology (1968)
1. What are Lee’s and Aberle’s main criticisms of the collection
(82)?
2. What are the levels of explanation advocated by Deetz
and Fritz? (82 right column-top of right column on 83)?
3. What ambiguities arise in terms of the covering law
model (1st full paragraph on 83-end of first paragraph right column on 84)?
4. What are the further problems outlined beginning in
the first full paragraph of the right column on 84-top of right column 85?