THE LOGICAL AND INTERPRETATIVE FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES IN SPACE ARCHEOLOGY. LANGUAGES, STRUCTURES AND MODELS Carlos Eduardo Thompson Routledge. 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN. Routledge is a brand of the Taylor & Francis Group © 2024 Carlos Eduardo Thompson

THE LOGICAL AND INTERPRETATIVE FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES IN SPACE ARCHEOLOGY. LANGUAGES, STRUCTURES AND MODELS

Carlos Eduardo Thompson

Routledge. 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN. 

Routledge is a brand of the Taylor & Francis Group © 2024 Carlos Eduardo Thompson

It is often said that scientific knowledge is, to a large extent, conceptual knowledge. We approach knowledge (in science) with the help of concepts that we create to study a certain domain that interests us. Space Archeology is the Archeology of Space Debris and it is the first time in the history of Archeology that we will go into space where there are no ideologies or borders. It involves a little more: we approach knowledge through structured concepts. Frameworks are what we use to approach scientific knowledge. It is with the help of structures that we organize the concepts that we use in our scientific activity. With structures,the scientist may have a list of object domains in which he is interested, a list of distinct relations, operations, and elements that are relevant to his approach; the interrelationships between distinct concepts become explicit. Thus, a structured account of scientific knowledge seems to capture much of what is generally said about scientific knowledge being conceptual. We note that the notion of structure we use here is very general. Even in the culture where Archeology appears as Intangible Cultural Heritage, the specialist uses structures of a type, let's say, when organizing his knowledge with concepts such as (for a post-processualism) unconscious, repetition, transference and drive. In this book, I am concerned with mathematical structures - that is, those that involve concepts from human sciences that are mathematicized, mainly physical sciences, as archeology is a human science that uses geospatial technologies, dating and mathematical theories for human evolution. I hope that my first investigation will shed some light on the nature of scientific theories, particularly on the relationship between structures and the linguistic apparatuses used to describe such structures.In more precise terms, what is a structure in the sense in which we use this term here, and how does it enter into the discussion and elaboration of a scientific theory? I will give precise definitions of these ideas and, most importantly, I will pay attention to the mathematical framework within which the notion of structure is constructed in post-processual archaeology. It is important to note that in the literature there are different approaches to structures, from their mathematical definitions (Bourbaki) to their use in mathematics (Bourbaki, again) and in more general scientific contexts (Carnap, Suppes).But no discussion has been provided so far on the type of mathematical application for a structure that depends on how it influences the idea of a scientific theory that depends on such structures. If a structure is, like we usually learn in our first-order logic courses, one of the wayA = hD, {ai}, {Rj}, {fk}i, with i, j and k varying at certain sets of indices,so we need to use set theory. But which set theory? We rarely argue questions like this and others related to them: Domain D can actually be considered a set (a collection of distinct elements)? And what about the individual constants there? They actually name some of the individuals of D? They are all nameable? And what about Rj relationships? Are they just relations relating elements of the domain? But what if the structure isa topological space, a well-ordered set, or something else, like almost all structures that model scientific theories are, which are not first-order structures like the one exemplified above? Even if we say we are reasoning within a specific set theory, and the structures that model the set are something that is also interpretive? Theory itself? Well, it can be said that we can always appeal to the informal set of theory, where (almost) anything can be done. This is especially true because informal set theory is inconsistent. Therefore, we should consider that our bestShould scientific theories be based on inconsistent mathematical bases, with Archeology also being interpretive?From the point of view of the logical foundations of science, this seems unbelievable and desirable. As archaeologists, we should look for suitable structures to substantiate our best theories in the emerging Space Archaeology. Of course, a theory can be incongruous,persistent. But in this case, we need to change the logic accordingly and at the same time the interpretation because Archeology is the most complex science, the most unknown because it combines logic with interpretation on land, sea and space. In prehistory, protohistory, history and contemporary.