Archeology, philosophy of science & Netflix ancient apocalypse show
I don't know if there are philosophers of science here who also understand archaeology and vice versa - but if yes, would love to hear more from you. For full disclosure I know nothing about archeology as a discipline. But I know about academia intimately and am a bit of a nerd about onlogology and epistemology. I just watched the Netflix series, ancient apocalypse. While I haven't done an in depth analysis of his argument, I do find his theories and reasoning interesting, particularly the comparative analyses of symbols, language, meanings etc. I wonder if part of the critiques he's faced from archeologists is related to the dominant philosophical framework archeologists scientifically engage with? Do archeologists only engage with positivism, and therefore the need for hard, measurable facts, or are there branches of archeology that are more open to other ways of knowing, like oral history/indigenous knowledge, critical realism etc? I know he's faced criticisms from indigenous people, and I acknowledge these. At the same time in his series, it sounds to me like he's validating the knowledge system of indigenous people, by listening to their story telling, and recognising these stories as legitimate form of knowledge (with important information for archeology); which many, many western scientists would be very quick to dismiss.