Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:14:19.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inference to the Best Explanation: A Common and Effective Form of Archaeological Reasoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lars Fogelin
Lars Fogelin*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Albion College, 611 East Porter St., Albion, MI 49224 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Processual and postprocessual archaeologists implicitly employ the same epistemological system to evaluate the worth of different explanations: inference to the best explanation. This is good since inference to the best explanation is the most effective epistemological approach to archaeological reasoning available. Underlying the logic of inference to the best explanation is the assumption that the explanation that accounts for the most evidence is also most likely to be true. This view of explanation often reflects the practice of archaeological reasoning better than either the hypothetico-deductive method or hermeneutics. This article explores the logic of inference to the best explanation and provides clear criteria to determine what makes one explanation better than another. Explanations that are empirically broad, general, modest, conservative, simple, testable, and address many perspectives are better than explanations that are not. This article also introduces a system of understanding explanation that emphasizes the role of contrastive pairings in the construction of specific explanations. This view of explanation allows for a better understanding of when, and when not, to engage in the testing of specific explanations.

Résumé

Résumé

Arqueólogos de las orientaciones teóricas procesual y postprocesual, implícitamente emplean el mismo sistema epistemológico para evaluar el mérito de diferentes interpretaciones: inferencia a la mejor explicación. Esto es bueno ya que inferencia a la mejor explicación es el método epistemológico más efectivo del razonamiento arqueológico disponible. Fundamental a esta lógica es la suposición de que la explicación que incorpora la mayor evidencia es también la más probable de ser verdad. Este método de explicación refleja más correctamente la práctica real del razonamiento arqueológico comparado con el método hipotético-deductivo o la hermenéutica. Este ensayo explora la lógica de la inferencia a la mejor explicación y proporciona criterios claros para determinar que hace una explicación mejor que otra. Las explicaciones que son empíricamente comprensivas, generales, modestas, conservativas, simples, que son refutables y que hacen referencia a múltiples perspectivas son mejor que las explicaciones que no lo son. Este ensayo además introduce un sistema para el entendimiento de explicaciones que acentúa el papel que juegan pares contrastantes en la construcción de explicaciones específicas. Esta perspectiva de explicación permite un mejor entendimiento de cuando, y cuando no, es necesario probar explicaciones específicas.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 72 , Issue 4 , October 2007 , pp. 603 - 626
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Arnold, Philip J. 2003 Back to Basics: The Middle-Range Program as Pragmatic Archaeology. In Essential Tensions in Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by Todd L. VanPool and Christine S. VanPool, pp. 55–66. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Arnold, Phillip J., and Wilkens, Brian S. 2001 On the VanPools’ “Scientific” Postprocessualism. American Antiquity 66:361–366.Google Scholar
Ascher, Robert 1961 Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17(4):317–325.Google Scholar
Bawden, Garth (editor) 2003 Readings in American Archaeological Theory: Selections from American Antiquity 1962–2002. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217–225.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1967 Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning. American Antiquity 32(1):1–12.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1968a Some Comments on Historical Versus Processual Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Archaeology 24:267–275.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1968b Archaeological Perspectives. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by Sally R. Binford and Lewis R. Binford, pp. 5–32. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1977 General Introduction. In For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by Lewis R. Binford, pp. 1–10. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, Sally R., and Binford, Lewis R. (editors) 1968 New Perspectives in Archaeology. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
Brody, Baruch A. 1970 Confirmation and Explanation. In Readings in the Philosophy of Science, edited by Baruch A. Brody, pp. 410–426. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Brody, J. J. 1977 Mimbres Painted Pottery. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, T. C. 1965[1890] The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses. Science 148(3671):754–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Fay-Cooper, Bell, Robert, Bennett, John, Caldwell, Joseph, Emerson, Norman, MacNeish, Richard, Orr, Kenneth, and Willis, Roger 1951 Kincaid: A Prehistoric Metropolis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Collingwood, Robin G. 1946 The Idea of History. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Dewey, John 1929 The Quest for Certainty. Minton, Balch, New York.Google Scholar
Dunnell, Robert C. 1982 Science, Social Science, and Common Sense: The Agonizing Dilemma of Modern Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research 38:1–25.Google Scholar
Dunnell, Robert C. 1989 Aspects of the Application of Evolutionary Theory in Archaeology. In Archaeological Thought in America, edited by C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 35–49. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, Robert C. 1992 Archaeology and Evolutionary Science. In Quandaries and Quests: Visions of Archaeology’s Future, edited by LuAnn Wandsnider, pp. 209–224. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Earle, Timothy K., and Preucel, Robert W. 1987 Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique. Current Anthropology 28:501–538.Google Scholar
Flannery, Kent V. 1973 Archaeology with a capitol S. In Research and Theory in Current Archaeology, edited by Charles L. Redman, pp. 47–58. Charles Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Flannery, Kent V. 1986 A Visit to the Master. In Guila Naquitz: Archaic Foraging and Early Agriculture in Oaxaca, Mexico, edited by Kent V. Flannery, pp. 511–519. Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
Fritz, John M., and Plog, Fred T. 1970 The Nature of Archaeological Explanations. American Antiquity 35:405–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbon, Guy 1989 Explanation in Archaeology. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gould, Richard A., and Watson, Patty Jo 1982 A Dialogue on the Meaning and Use of Analogy in Ethnoarchaeological Reasoning. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:355–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanen, Marsha, and Kelley, Jane 1989 Inference to the Best Explanation in Archaeology. In Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology: Essays in the Philosophy, History and Socio-politics of Archaeology, edited by Valerie Pinsky and Alison Wylie, pp. 14–17. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hanson, Norwood R. 1958 Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert H. 1965 The Inference to the Best Explanation. The Philosophical Review 74(1):88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, Gilbert H. 1968a Knowledge, Inference and Explanation. American Philosophical Quarterly 5:164–173.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert H. 1968b Enumerative Induction as Inference to the Best Explanation. Journal of Philosophy 65:529–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, Gilbert H. 1973 Thought. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Haury, Emil 1958 Evidence at Point of Pines for a Prehistoric Migration from Northern Arizona In Migrations in New World Culture History, edited by R. H. Thompson, pp. 1–6. Social Science Bulletin, vol. 27. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Hegmon, Michelle 2003 Setting Theoretical Egos Aside: Issues and Theory in North American Archaeology. American Antiquity 68:213–243.Google Scholar
Hegmon, Michelle, and Trevathan, Wenda R. 1996 Gender, Anatomical Knowledge, and Pottery: Implications of an Anatomically Unusual Birth Depicted on Mimbres Pottery from Southwestern New Mexico. American Antiquity 61:747–754.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. 1965 Aspects of Scientific Explanation. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. 1966 Philosophy of Natural Science. MIT Press, Boston.Google Scholar
Hewett, E. L., Henderson, J., and Robbins, W. W. 1913 The Physiography of the Rio Grand Valley, New Mexico, in Relation to Pueblo Culture. Bulletin No. 54. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington.Google Scholar
Hill, James N. 1970 Broken K Pueblo: Prehistoric Social Organization in the American Southwest. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona No. 18. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian 1982 Symbols in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian 1983 Archaeology, Ideology, and Contemporary Society. Royal Anthropological Institute News 56:6–7.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian 1984 Archaeology in 1984. Antiquity 58:25–32.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian 1991 Interpretive Archaeology and its Role. American Antiquity 56(1):7–18.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian 1999 The Archaeological Process. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Honderich, Ted (editor) 1995 The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hume, David 1956[1777] An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Gateway Editions, Chicago.Google Scholar
Huntington, Ellsworth 1914 The Climactic Factor as Illustrated in Arid America. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Hutson, Scott R. 2001 Synergy Through Disunity, Science as Social Practice: Comments on VanPool and VanPool. American Antiquity 66:349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jett, Stephen C., and Moyle, Peter B. 1986 The Exotic Origins of Fishes Depicted on Prehistoric Mimbres Pottery from New Mexico. American Antiquity 51:688–720.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1998[1781] Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kelley, Jane H., and Hanen, Marsha P. 1988 Archaeology and the Methodology of Science. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Kidder, Alfred Vincent 1924 An Introduction to the Study of Southwestern Archaeology: With a Preliminary Account of the Excavations at Pecos. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip 1981 Explanatory Unification. Philosophy of Science 48(4):507–531.Google Scholar
Kosso, Peter 1991 Method in Archaeology: Middle Range Theory as Hermeneutics. American Antiquity 56:621–627.Google Scholar
LaMotta, Vincent M., and Schiffer, Michael B. 2001 Behavioral Archaeology: Toward a new Synthesis. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 14–64. Polity, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lipton, Peter 1991 Inference to the Best Explanation. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee, and O’Brien, Michael J. 1998 The Goals of Evolutionary Archaeology. Current Anthropology 39:615–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, Ernst 1982 The Growth of Biological Thought. Belknap Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mills, Barbara J. 1995 The Origins of Southwestern Ceramic Containers: Women’s Time Allocation and Economic Intensification. Journal of Anthropological Research 51:149–172.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart 1904 A System of Logic. 8th ed. Longman, Green and Co., London.Google Scholar
Moulard, Barbara 1984 Within the Underworld Sky: Mimbres Ceramics in Context. Twelve Trees Press, Pasadena.Google Scholar
Newell, H. Perry, and Krieger, Alex D. 1949 The George C. Davis Site, Cherokee County, Texas. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 5. Society for American Archaeology, Menasha.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Michael J., Lee Lyman, R., and Schiffer, Michael Brian 2005 Archaeology as a Process: Processualism and Its Progeny. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Ormiston, Gayle L., and Schrift, Alan D. (editors) 1990 The Hermeneutic Tradition. State University of New York, Albany.Google Scholar
Peebles, Christopher S. 1992 Rooting Out Latent Behaviorism in Prehistory. In Representations in Archaeology, edited by Jean Claude Gardin and Christopher S. Peebles, pp. 357–384. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1931 Collected Papers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Pinsky, Valerie, and Wylie, Alison (editors) 1989 Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology: Essays in the Philosophy, History and Socio-politics of Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1959 The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1976 Logic of the Social Sciences. In The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, edited by Theodor W. Adorno, Hans Albert, Ralf Dahrendorf, Jürgen Habermas, Harald Pilot and Karl R. Popper. Translated by Glyn Adey and David Frisby. Heineman, London.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V., and Ullian, J. S. 1978 The Web of Belief. 2nd ed. Random House, New York.Google Scholar
Read, Dwight W., and LeBlanc, Stephen A. 1978 Descriptive Statements, Covering Laws, and Theories in Archaeology. Current Anthropology 2:309–316.Google Scholar
Richards, Colin 1990 The Late Neolithic House in Orkney. In The Social Archaeology of Houses, edited by Ross Samson. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Salmon, Merrilee 1982 Philosophy and Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Salmon, Merrilee H., and Salmon, Wesley C. 1979 Alternative Methods of Scientific Explanation. American Anthropologist 81:61–74.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B. 1988 The Structure of Archaeological Theory. American Antiquity 53:461–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer, Harry J. 1985 A Mimbres Potter’s Grave. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 56:185–200.Google Scholar
Shanks, Michael, and Hodder, Ian 1995 Processual, Postprocessual and Interpretive Archaeologies. In Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past, edited by Ian Hodder, Michael Shanks, Alexandra Alexandri, Victor Buchli, John Carman, Jonathan Last, and Gavin Lucas. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Shanks, Michael, and Tilley, Christopher 1987a Reconstructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Shanks, Michael, and Tilley, Christopher 1987b Social Theory in Archaeology. Polity Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Taylor, Walter W. 1948 A Study of Archaeology. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Thagard, Paul R. 1978 The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice. The Journal of Philosophy 75:76–92.Google Scholar
Thompson, John B. 1981 Critical Hermeneutics. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuggle, David H., Townsend, Alex H., and Riley, Thomas J. 1972 Laws, Systems, and Research Designs: A Discussion of Explanation in Archaeology. American Antiquity 37:3–12.Google Scholar
VanPool, Christine S., and VanPool, Todd L. 1999 The Scientific Nature of Postprocessualism. American Antiquity 64:33–53.Google Scholar
VanPool, Christine S., and VanPool, Todd L. 2001 Postprocessualism and the Nature of Science: A Response to Comments by Hutson and Arnold and Wilkens. American Antiquity 66:367–375.Google Scholar
Watson, Patty Jo, LeBlanc, Steven A., and Redman, Charles L. 1971 Explanation in Archaeology: An Explicitly Scientific Approach. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Watson, Patty Jo, LeBlanc, Steven A., and Redman, Charles L. 1984 Archaeological Explanation: The Scientific Method in Archaeology. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Wright, Rita P. 1991 Women’s Labor and Pottery Production in Prehistory. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by Joan M. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, pp. 194–223. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Wylie, Alison 2002 Thinking from Things. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Yoffee, Norman 2005 Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar