Anglosakson Arkeoloji Geleneği Bağlamında Bilimsel Açıklamaların Doğası ve Statüsü

Year 2023, Issue: 1, 17 - 37, 28.04.2023

Ahmet Dinçer Çevik

Abstract

Geçmişte, insan düşüncesinin ürünü olarak üretilen maddi kalıntılar ve materyal kültürü ve bunların o topluluklar için ne anlama geldiğini; kültürel değişimleri ve kültürlerin birbiri ile olan etkileşimlerini neden sonuç ilişkileri ile açıklamaya odaklanmış bir bilim olarak arkeoloji, çalışmalarında disiplinlerarası yaklaşım ve yöntemleri kullanır. Arkeolojinin farklı disiplinlerle sürekli etkileşim halinde olduğu genel olarak üzerinde uzlaşı bulunan noktalardan biriyken bu alanda sunulan bilimsel açıklamaların doğası üzerine yürütülen tartışmalar nispeten sınırlı kalmıştır. Arkeolojideki açıklamaların doğasının incelenme girişimlerinde spekülasyonları eleyip kanıtlara ve kesinliğe ulaşma amacıyla birçok epistemik strateji arkeolojiye adapte edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu stratejiler geleneksel arkeolojinin endüktivist yaklaşımından yeni arkeolojinin dedüktivist yaklaşımına ve daha yeni dönemlerde en iyi açıklamaya çıkarım metoduna kadar çeşitlendirilebilir. Bu makalede, söz konusu epistemik stratejilerin arkeolojideki açıklamalarda nasıl kullanıldığı ile ilgili bilim felsefesi açısından ve Anglosakson arkeoloji geleneği bağlamında bir incelemesini yaparak arkeolojideki açıklamalar ile ilgili tartışmaların eğer yeni arkeoloji yaklaşımının ve bilim felsefesinin izleri takip edilecekse model temelli açıklamalara, post-süreçsel arkeolojinin izleri takip edilecekse de arkeolojik fenomenin açıklanmasından çok anlamlandırılması ve anlayışının kazanılmasını ön plana çıkartılan post-süreçsel arkeolojiye odaklanması gerektiğini iddia ediyorum.

Keywords

Arkeoloji, Yeni Arkeoloji, bilimsel açıklamalar, dedüktivizm, endüktivizm, en iyi açıklamaya çıkarım

References

• Ben-Menahem, Y. (1990). The Inference to the Best Explanation, Erkenntnis 33, 319- 44.
• Binford, L.R. (1962). Archeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217-225.
• Binford, L.R. (1967). Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning. American Antiquity, 32 (1):1-12.
• Binford, L.R. (1968). Post-Pleistocene Adaptations, New Perspectives in Archaeology içinde (s. 313-341). Binford &L.R. Binford, Chicago: Aldline.
• Binford, L.R. (1968a). Some Comments on Historical Versus Processual Archaeology. Soutwestern Journal of Archaeology 24: 267-275.
• Binford, L.R. (1968b). Archaeological Perspectives, New Perspectives in Archaeology içinde (5-32). Sally R. Binford and Lewis R. Binford Chicago: Aldine.
• Binford, L.R. (1972). An Archaeological Perspective. New York: Seminar Press.
• Boddington, M. (2013). Truth and Archaeology: Justification in Archaeology. Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, University of Cambridge.
• Bogaard, A. (2015). Lessons from modelling Neolithic farming practice: methods of elimination, Material Evidence: Learning from Archaeological Practice içinde (243-254). R. Chapman and A. Wylie, London: Routledge.
• Caldwell, J.B. (1959). The New American Archaeology. Science 129: 303- 307.
• Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press
• Collingwood., R.G. (1946). The Idea of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
• Conee, E. & Feldman, R. (2008). Evidenc Epistemology: New Essays içinde (83-104). Quentin Smith, Oxford University Press. Çelebi, V. (2016). Michel Foucault’da Arkeolojik Çözümleme ve Arkeolojik Çözümlemenin Süreksizlik Tezi. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(1):993-1014.
• Çevik, A.D. (2021). Sosyal Bilimler ve Bilimsel Yasalar. FLSF (Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi) 32, s. 177-194.
• Day, T., Kincaid, H. (1994). Putting Inference to the Best Explanation in Its Place. Synthese 98: 271-295.
• Dewey, J. (1929). The Quest for Certainty. New York: Minton, Balch.
• Douven, I. (1998). Inference to the Best Explanation Made Coherent. Philosophy of Science, Vol.66, 424-435.
• Douven, Igor, "Abduction", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/abduction/>. Erişim tarihi 04.05.2022.
• Dray W.H. (1957). Laws and Explanation in History. Greenwood Press.
• Dunnel, R.C. (1989). Aspects of the Application of Evolutionary Theory in Archaeology, Archaeological Thought in America içinde (35-49). C. C. Lamberg- Karlovsky Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dunnel, R.C. (1992). Archaeology and Evolutionary Science, Quandries and Quests: Visions of Archaeology’s Future içinde (s.209-224). LuAnn Wandsnider, Carbondale: Southern Illinois at Carbondale.
• Embree, L. (1992). The Past and Future of Metaarchaeology, Metaarchaeology: Reflections by Archaeologists and Philosophers içinde (3-50). L. Embree, Boston: Kluwer.
• Flannery, K V. (1967). Cultural History versus Cultural Process: A Debate in American Archaeology. Scientific American, 217(2):119-122.
• Flannery, K V. (1973). Archaeology with a capitol S., Research and Theory in Current Archaeology içinde (47-58). Charles L. Redman, New York: Charles Wiley and Sons.
• Flannery, K V. (1986). A visit to the Master, Guila Naquitz: Archaic Foraging and Eraly Agriculture in Oaxaca, Mexico içinde (511-519). Kent V. Flannery Orlando: Academic Press.
• Fogelin, L. (2007). Inference to the Best Explanation: A Common and Effective Form of Archaeological Reasoning. American Antiquity, Vol. 72, No. 4, 603-625.
• Fritz, M.J., Plog, F.T. (1970). The Nature of Archaeological Explanation. American Antiquity, Vol. 35, No. 4, 405-412.
• Gardin, J. C. (2002). The Logicist Analysis of Explanatory Theories in Archaeology, The Explanatory Power of Models içinde (267-284). R. Franck, Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4676-6_13
• Gibbon, G. (1989). Explanation in Archaeology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
• Giere, R. (1999). Science Without Laws. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
• Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hanen, M.P, Kelley, J. K. (1989). Inference to the Best Explanation in Archaeology, Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology: Essays in the Philosophy, History, and Socio-Politics of Archaeology içinde (14-17). V. Pinsky and A. Wylie Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Harman, G. (1965). The Inference to the Best Explanation. The Philosophical Review 74(1), 88–95.
• Harman, G. (1968). Enumerative Induction as Inference to the Best Explanation. The Journal of Philosophy 65(18), 529–533.
• Harman, G. (2010). Toward Speculative Realism. Essays and Lectures. Zero Books, Melbourne.
• Hempel, C. & Paul Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the Logic of Explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15(2): 135–175.
• Hempel, C. (1942). The Function of General Laws in History. The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 39, No. 2, 35-48.
• Hempel, C. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in Philosophy of Science. Free Press, New York.
• Hill, J. N. (1970). Broken K. Pueblo: Prehistoric Social Organizastion in the American Soutwest. Anthropollogical Papers of the University of Arizona, No.18. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.
• Hodder I., & Hutson, S. (2003). Reading the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hodder, I. (1982). Symbols in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Hodder, I. (1984). Archaeology in 1984. Antiquity, Volume 58, Issue 222 58: 25-32.
• Kapitan, T. (1992). Peirce and the Autonomy of Abductive Reasoning. Erkenntnis, 37: 1– 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00220630.
• Kayalıgil, M. C. (2019). Bilimin Birliği Tezi ve Sosyal Bilimler Yasaları. ViraVerita E- Dergi: Disiplinlerarası Karşılaşmalar, 106-127.
• Kelley, J.K, Hanen, M.P. (1988). Archaeology and the Methodology of Science. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
• Khalifa, K. (2019). Is Verstehen Scientific Understanding? Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 49 (4): 282-306.
• Killin A., Hermanson, S.A. (Eds.) (2021). Explorations in Archaeology and Philosophy. Springer Cam.
• Kosso, P. (1991). Method in Archaeology: Middle-range Theory as Hermeneutics. American Antiquity 56: 621-6.
• Krieger, H., (2006). Can There Be a Philosophy of Archaeology? Processual Archaeology and Philosophy of Science. Lexington Books, Lanham, MD.
• Krieger, W.H. (2006). Can There be a Philosophy of Archaeology? Langtham, MD: Lexington Books.
• Lipton, P. (1991). Inference to the Best Explanation. Routledge.
• Lipton, P. (2000). Inference to the Best Explanation, A Companion to the Philosophy of Science içinde (184-193). W.H. Newton-Smith, Blackwell.
• Lycan, W. G. (1988). Judgment and Justification. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Lyman, R.L. & O’ Brien M.J. (1998). The Goals of Evolutionary Archaeology. Current Antropology, 39: 615-652.
• Marila, M. (2020). Introductory Notes to A Speculative epistemology of Archaeology. Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, University of Helsinki.
• Marila, M., Ahola, M., Mannermaa, K., Lavento, M. (Eds.) (2017). Archaeology and Analogy. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
• Martin, P. (1972). The Revolution in Archaeology, Contemporary Archaeology: A Guide to Theory and Contributions içinde (1-8). Leone, Mark, London: Southern Illinois University Press.
• McMullin, E. (1992). The Inference that Makes Science. Milwaukee (WI): Marquette University Press.
• Mill, J.S. (1904). A System of Logic.8th Ed. Longman. London: Green and Co.
• Morgan, C. (1974). Explanation and Scientific Archeology. World Archaeology 6,133‐ 137.
• O’Hara, R. J. (1996). Mapping the Space of Time: Temporal Representation in the Historical Sciences, New Perspectives on the History of Life: Systematic Biology as Historical Narrative içinde (7–17). M. T. Ghiselin & G. Pinna California Academy of Sciences.
• Paavola, S. (2005). Peircean Abduction: Instinct or Inference? Semiotica, 153: 131–54.
• Peebles, C.S. (1992). Rooting Our Latent Behaviorism in Prehistory, Representations in Archaeology içinde (357-384). Jean Claude Gardin, J.C., and Christopher S. Peebles, C.S., Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Peirce, C. S. (1931). Collected Papers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Peirce, C.S. (1931–1958). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce 1931–1958 edited by C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. Burks. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
• Plog, F. (1974). The Study of Prehistoric Change. New York: Academic Press.
• Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Jutchinson
• Popper, K. (1976). Logic of the Social Sciences, The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, Çevr. Adey G.& Frisby D. içinde (87-104). Adorno T.W, Albert H, Dahrendorf R., Habermas J. Pilot H, Popper, K., London: Heinemann.
• Preucel, R.W (1991). Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper 10. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
• Renfrew, C. & Bahn, P. (2005). Arkeoloji Anahtar Kavramlar. (Çev. Selda Somuncuoğlu). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Renfrew, C. & Bahn, P. (2017). Arkeoloji. (Çev. Gürkan Ergin). İstanbul: Homer kitabevi.
• Routledge, B. (1995). ‘For the sake of argument’: reflections on the structure of argumentation in Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 127(1), 41–49.
• Salmon, M. & Salmon W.S. (1979). Alternative Methods of Scientific Explanation. American Antropologists 81: 61-74.
• Salmon, M. H. (1976). "Deductive" versus "Inductive" Archaeology. American Antiquity, Vol. 41, No. 3, 376-381.
• Salmon, M. H. (1982). Explanation and Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
• Salmon, M. H. (1982). Philosophy and Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.
• Salmon, M. H. (1990). On the Possibility of Lawful Explanation in Archaeology. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía, Vol. 22, No. 66, 87-114.
• Salmon, M. H. (1992). Philsophical Models for Postprocessual Archaeology, Metaarchaeology: Perspectives by Archaeologists and Philosophers, içinde (227-241). L. Embree, London: Kluwer.
• Salmon, M. H. (1993). Philosophy of Archaeology: Current Issues. Journal of Archaeological Research, 1(4):323-343.
• Salmon, W. (1984). Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Shanks, M., Tilley, C. (1987a). Reconstructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
• Shanks, M., Tilley, C. (1987b). Social Theory in Archaeology. Oxford: Polity Press.
• Smith, M.E. (2011). Empirical Urban Theory for Archaeologists. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 18(3), 167–192.
• Sober, E. (1988.) Reconstructing the past; parsimony, Evolution and Inference. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
• Stanish, C. (2008). Explanation in Archaeology, Overview, Encylopedia of Archaeology Vol.2., içinde (1358- 1364). Deborah M. Pearsall, New York: Academic Press
• Tanghe, K.B. (2019). The Fate of William Whewell’s Four Palætiological Domains: A Comparative Study. Perspectives on Science 27 (6): 810–838.
• Turner, D. (2007). Making prehistory: Historical Sscience and the Scientific Realism Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Van Fraassen, B. C. (1989). Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Van Fraassen, B.C. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Wallach, E. (2019). Inference from absence: the case of archaeology. Palgrave Commun 5, 94, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0307-9
• Watson, P. J., LeBlanc, S.A., Redman C.L. (1971). Explanation in Archaeology: An Explicitly Scientific Approach. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Watson, P. J., LeBlanc, S.A., Redman C.L. (1974). The Covering Law Model in Archaeology: Practical Uses and Formal Interpretations. World Archaeology, Vol. 6, No. 2, 125- 132.
• Watson, P. J., LeBlanc, S.A., Redman C.L. (1984). Archaeological Explanation: The Scientific Method in Archaeology. New York. Columbia University Press.
• Whewell, W. (1847). The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences. London: John Parker,
• Willey G.R. & Phillips, P. (1958). Method and Theory in American Archaeology. Chicago&London: The University of Chicago Press.
• Woodward, J. (1989). The Causal Mechanical Model of Explanation. Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science, 13: 359-383.
• Woodward, J. (2003). Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wylie, A. (2007). Philosophy and Archaeology; Philosophy in Archaeology, Philosophy of Antropology and Sociology, Handbook of the Philosophy of Science içinde (517-549). Stephen P. Turner and Mark W. Risjord, Elsevier.
• Wylie, A. (2017). Representational and Experimental Modeling in Archaeology, Springer Handbook of Model-Based Science içinde (989- 1002). Magnani, L., Bertolotti, T., Springer International Publishing.
• Wylie, A. (2017). Representational and Experimental Modeling in Archaeology, Handbook of Model-Based Science içinde (989- 1002). Magnani, L., Bertolotti, T., Springer Cham.