No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
On the Relativity of Relativism
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009
Extract
The ideas which scientists use to present the known and to advance into the unknown are only rarely in agreement with the strict injunctions of logic or pure mathematics and the attempt to make them conform would rob science of the elasticity without which progress cannot be achieved. We see: facts alone are not strong enough for making us accept, or reject, scientific theories, the range they leave to thought is too wide; logic and methodology eliminate too much, they are too narrow. In between these two extremes lies the ever-changing domain of human ideas and wishes. (Feyerabend 1975, 303)
- Type
- Discussion
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s) 1997
References
Anthony, D., 1995: Nazi and eco-feminist prehistories. Ideology and empiricism in Indo-European archaeology, in Kohl, P. and Fawcett, C. (eds), Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology, Cambridge, 82–96.Google Scholar
Anyon, R., Ferguson, T.J., Jackson, L. and Lane, L., 1996: Native American oral traditions and archaeology, Society for American Archaeology bulletin 14 (2), 14–16.Google Scholar
Bell, J., 1991: Anarchy and archaeology, in Preucel, R. (ed.), Processual and postprocessual archaeologies. Multiple ways of knowing the past (Occasional Paper 10), Carbondale, 71–80.Google Scholar
Bernbeck, R., and Pollock, S., 1996: Ayodhya, archaeology, and identity, Current anthropology 37, 138–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, R., 1983: Beyond objectivism and relativism. Science, hermeneutics, and praxis, Oxford.Google Scholar
Bernstein, R., 1991a: Introduction, in , The new constellation. The ethical-political horizons of modernity/postmodernity, Cambridge, 1–14.Google Scholar
Bernstein, R., 1991b: Incommensurability and otherness revisited, in R. Bernstein, The new constellation. The ethical-political horizons of modernity/postmodernity, Cambridge, 57–78.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J., 1988: A review of contemporary perspectives on the ‘meaning’ of the past, in Bintliff, J. (ed.), Extracting meaning from the past, Oxford, 3–36.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J., 1991: Post-modernism, rhetoric and scholasticism at TAG. The current state of British archaeological theory, Antiquity 65, 274–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bray, T., 1996: Repatriation, power relations and the politics of the past, Antiquity 70, 440–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castells, M. 1996, The rise of the network society, Cambridge MA (The information age, 1).Google Scholar
Chernykh, E., 1995: Postscript. Russian archaeology after the collapse of the USSR. Infrastructural crisis and the resurgence of old and new nationalisms, in Kohl, P. and Fawcett, C. (eds), Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology, Cambridge, 139–148.Google Scholar
Chippindale, C., 1990: Theoretical Archaeology Group: 11th conference, Current anthropology 31, 463–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demeritt, D., 1996: Social theory and the reconstruction of science and geography, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers (NS) 21, 484–503.Google Scholar
Doppelt, G., 1978: Kuhn's epistemological relativism. An interpretation and defence, Inquiry 21, 33–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doppelt, G., 1983: Relativism and recent pragmatic conceptions of scientific rationality, in Rescher, N. (ed.), Scientific explanation and understanding, Lauhan, 107–142.Google Scholar
Eggert, M.K.H., 1978: Prähistorische Archäologie und Ethnologie. Studien zur amerikanischen New Archaeology, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 53, 6–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggert, M.K.H., and Veit, U. (eds), in press 1998: Theorie in Archäologie. Zum englischsprachigen Diskussion, Münster.Google Scholar
Elias, N., 1983: Engagement und Distanzierung. Arbeiten zur Wissenssoziologie, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Evans, C., 1995: Archaeologists against the state. Roots of internationalism, in Ucko, P. (ed.), Theory in Archaeology. A world perspective, London, 312–326.Google Scholar
Fabian, J., 1991: Dilemmas of critical anthropology, in Fabian, J., Time and the work of anthropology. Critical essays 1971–1991, Harwood, 245–264.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P., 1975: Against method. Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge, London.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P., 1991: Beyond reason. Essays on the philosophy of Paul K. Feyerabend, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Finn, C., 1997: ‘Leaving more than footprints’. Modern votive offerings at Chaco Canyon prehistoric site, Antiquity 71, 169–178.Google Scholar
Fotiadis, M., 1994: What is archaeology's ‘mitigated objectivism’ mitigated by? Comments on Wylie, American antiquity 59, 545–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frerichs, K., 1981: Begriffsbildung und Begriffsanwendung in der Vor- und Frühgeschichte. Zur logischen Analyse archäologischer Aussagen, Bern (Arbeiten zur Urgeschichte des Menschen 5).Google Scholar
Gellner, E., 1981: General introduction. Relativism and universals, in Lloyd, B. and Gay, J. (eds), Universals of human thought. Some African evidence, Cambridge, 1–20 (reprinted in Gellner 1985, 83–10).Google Scholar
Giroux, H., Shumway, D., Smith, P. and Sosnoski, J., 1995: The need for cultural studies. Resisting intellectuals and oppositional public spheres, in Nunns, J. and Rajan, G.(eds), A cultural studies reader. History, theory, practice, London, 646–658.Google Scholar
Gooding, D., Pinch, T. and Schaffer, S.(eds), 1989: The uses of experiment. Studies in the natural sciences, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hamilakis, Y., 1996: Through the looking glass. Nationalism, archaeology and the politics of identity, Antiquity 70, 975–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilakis, Y., and Yalouri, E., 1996: Antiquities as symbolic capital in modern Greek society, Antiquity 70, 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, D., 1994: Pathways to world prehistory. Presidential address, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I., 1991: Postprocessual archaeology and the current debate, in Preucel, R. (ed.), Processual and postprocessual archaeologies, Carbondale, 30–41.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 1997: ‘Always momentary, fluid and flexible’. Towards a reflexive excavation methodology, Antiquity 71, 691–700.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C., 1996: Why fascists don't like ‘postprocessualism’, Assemblage 1: http://-www.shef.ac.uk/~assem/holtorf.html.Google Scholar
Jones, S., and Graves-Brown, P., 1996: Introduction. Archaeology and cultural identity in Europe, in Jones et al. (eds), 1–24.Google Scholar
Jones, S., Graves-Brown, P. and Gamble, C. (eds), 1996: Cultural identity and archaeology. The construction of European communities, London.Google Scholar
Knapp, B., 1996: Archaeology without gravity. Postmodernism and the past, Journal of archaeological method and theory 3, 127–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K., 1993: Strong constructivism - from a sociologist's point of view. A personal addendum to Sismondo's paper, Social studies of science 23, 555–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K., and M., Mulkay, 1983: Introduction. Emerging principles in social studies of science, in Knorr-Cetina, K. and Mulkay, M. (eds), Science observed, London, 1–17.Google Scholar
Kohl, P., 1993: Limits to a post-processual archaeology (or, The dangers of a new scholasticism), in Yoffee, N. and Sherratt, A.(eds), Archaeological theory. Who sets the agenda? Cambridge, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohl, P., and Fawcett, C.(eds), 1995a: Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kohl, P., and Fawcett, C., 1995b: Archaeology in the service of the state. Theoretical considerations, in Kohl, P. and Fawcett, C.(eds), Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology, Cambridge, 3–18.Google Scholar
Kohl, P., and G., Tsetskhladze, 1995: Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology in the Caucasus, in Kohl, P. and Fawcett, C.(eds), Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology, Cambridge, 149–174.Google Scholar
Kossack, G., and Küster, H. 1987: Review of Peter Breunig, 14C-Chronologie des vorder-asiatischen, südost- und mitteleuropäischen Neolithikums (1987), Germania 69, 433–445.Google Scholar
Kosselleck, R., 1989: Standortbindung und Zeitlichkeit. Ein Beitrag zur historiographischen Erschließung der geschichtlichen Welt, in Kosselleck, R. (ed.), Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten, Frankfurt am Main, 176–207.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S., 1962: The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago (2nd edition 1970).Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1987: Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Laudan, L., 1977: Progress and its problems. Towards a theory of scientific growth, Berkeley.Google Scholar
MacDonald, K., Hung, F. and Crawford, H., 1995: Prehistory as propaganda, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 6, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, R., and Shanks, M., 1996: The craft of archaeology, American antiquity 61, 75–88.Google Scholar
Pickering, A., 1993: The mangle of practice. Agency and emergence in the sociology of science, American journal of sociology 99, 559–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, A., 1995: The mangle of practice. Time, agency & science, Chicago-London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinsky, V., and Wylie, A. (eds), 1989: Critical traditions in contemporary archaeology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Pluciennik, M., 1996: Comment on, MacDonald K., Hung F. and Crawford H. (1995), ‘Prehistory as propaganda’, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 7, 5–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, D., 1994: Incommensurabel, incompatibel, onvergelijkbaar, Algemeen Nederlands tijdschrift voor wijsbegeerte 86, 183–206.Google Scholar
Raven, D., 1996: The enculturation of logical practice, Configuration 5, 381–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1989: Comments on archaeology into the 1990s, Norwegian archaeological review 22, 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1993: Cognitive archaeology. Some thoughts on the archaeology of thought, Cambridge archaeological journal 3, 248–250.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1996: Prehistory and the identity of Europe or, Don't lets be beastly to the Hungarians, in Graves-Brown, P., Jones, S. and Gamble, C. (eds), Cultural identity and archaeology. The construction of European communities, London, 125–137.Google Scholar
Rüsen, J., 1993: Konfigurationen des Historismus. Studien zur deutschen Wissenschaftskultur, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., and Hodder, I., 1996: Processual, postprocessual and interpretive archaeologies, in Hodder, I., Shanks, M., Alexandri, A., Buchli, V., Carman, J., Last, J. and Lucas, G. (eds), Interpreting archaeology, London, 3–29.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C., 1987b: Re-constructing archaeology. Theory and practice, London.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C., 1989: Archaeology into the 1990s, Norwegian archaeological review 22, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanks, M., and Tilley, C., 1992: Re-constructing archaeology. Theory and practice (second edition), London.Google Scholar
Shapin, S., and Schaffer, S., 1985: Leviathan and the air-pump. Hobbes, Boyle and the experimental life, Princeton.Google Scholar
Sismondo, S., 1993: Some social constructions, Social studies of science 23, 515–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinosa, C., and Dreyfus, H., 1996: Two kinds of antiessentialism and their consequences, Critical inquiry 22, 735–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiro, M. E., 1984: Some reflections on cultural determinism and relativism, in Shweder, R. A. and LeVine, R. A. (eds), Culture theory. Essays on mind, self, and emotion, Cambridge, 323–346.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., and Tilley, C., 1992: TAG and ‘post-modernism’. A reply to John Bintliff, Antiquity 66, 106–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, C., 1989: Archaeology as socio-political action in the present, in Pinsky, V. and Wylie, A. (eds), Critical traditions in contemporary archaeology, Cambridge, 104–117.Google Scholar
Trigger, B., 1989b: Hyperrelativism, responsibility and the social sciences, Canadian review of sociology and anthropology 26, 776–797.Google Scholar
Trigger, B., 1995: Archaeology and the integrated circus, Critique of anthropology 15, 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veit, U., 1985: Gustaf Kossinna und V. Gordon Childe. Ansätze zu einer theoretischen Grundlegung der Vorgeschichte, Saeculum 35 (3–4), 326–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wobst, H. M., 1989: Commentary. A socio-politics of socio-politics in archaeology, in Pinsky, V. and Wylie, A. (eds), Critical traditions in contemporary archaeology, Cambridge, 136–140.Google Scholar
Wolfram, S., and Sommer, U. (eds), 1993: Macht der Vergangenheit - Wer macht Vergangenheit. Archäologie und Politik, Wilkau-Hasslau.Google Scholar
Wylie, A., 1992: The interplay of evidential constraints and political interests. Recent archaeological research on gender, American antiquity 57, 478–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, A., 1993: A proliferation of new archaeologies. ‘Beyond objectivism and relativism’, in Yoffee, N. and Sherratt, A. (eds), Archaeological theory. Who sets the agenda?, Cambridge, 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, A., 1994: On capturing the facts alive in the past (or present). Response to Fotiadis and Little, American antiquity 59, 556–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar