Sapient, The Undergraduate Journal of Biological Anthropology, 2021
The unfavorable preservation bias at Paleolithic time-depth encourages risk-averse interpret... more The unfavorable preservation bias at Paleolithic time-depth encourages risk-averse interpretations, the use of calcified vocabulary, and an avoidance of research where evidence is thin. Within the academic literature there is a relentless pressure to propose only the most likely ideas from fear that any hypothesis without clear and concrete evidence is unjustified. But what is the alternative? Maximizing speculation in the creation of new hypotheses allows for greater opportunities to explore human experience in the remote past in new ways, and it can overturn the fossilized linguistic and theoretical conventions entrenched in paleoarchaeology. This paper attempts to apply a new risk-seeking approach to hypothesis development in contexts with weak archaeological preservation. I propose a new methodology that I call Maximal Speculation, which asks, "What is the widest possible range of interpretations?" and "Can any of these be disproven or proven less likely?". By only requiring proof of impossibility rather than of possibility, this approach prevents more radical interpretations from languishing unexamined. Rather than attempting to prove a given hypothesis, an opposite statement is crafted with the goal of disproving a null hypothesis. This distinction allows researchers to build a body of indirect evidence when direct evidence is not available. In Paleolithic archaeology, there is a reflex to advance only the most parsimonious hypotheses. This seems to stem from the axiomatic rationale that the simplest explanation is the most likely. Reality, however, is rife with complication. By allowing ourselves to gravitate towards explanations we perceive as simpler or more efficient, we actively overlook evidence that falls outside of our personal definitions of these ideas. The simplest explanation from the archaeologist's perspective cannot be the most likely, as it is inevitably based on incomplete information. Instead, taking the Maximal Speculation approach actively invests in including the outer limits of the possible in the discussion. This endeavor can feel infinite and unachievable, but it is not. The intent is not to exhaustively identify all possible explanations, but rather to discourage avoidance of the most extreme explanations.
Sapient, The Undergraduate Journal of Biological Anthropology, 2021
The unfavorable preservation bias at Paleolithic time-depth encourages risk-averse interpret... more The unfavorable preservation bias at Paleolithic time-depth encourages risk-averse interpretations, the use of calcified vocabulary, and an avoidance of research where evidence is thin. Within the academic literature there is a relentless pressure to propose only the most likely ideas from fear that any hypothesis without clear and concrete evidence is unjustified. But what is the alternative? Maximizing speculation in the creation of new hypotheses allows for greater opportunities to explore human experience in the remote past in new ways, and it can overturn the fossilized linguistic and theoretical conventions entrenched in paleoarchaeology. This paper attempts to apply a new risk-seeking approach to hypothesis development in contexts with weak archaeological preservation. I propose a new methodology that I call Maximal Speculation, which asks, "What is the widest possible range of interpretations?" and "Can any of these be disproven or proven less likely?". By only requiring proof of impossibility rather than of possibility, this approach prevents more radical interpretations from languishing unexamined. Rather than attempting to prove a given hypothesis, an opposite statement is crafted with the goal of disproving a null hypothesis. This distinction allows researchers to build a body of indirect evidence when direct evidence is not available. In Paleolithic archaeology, there is a reflex to advance only the most parsimonious hypotheses. This seems to stem from the axiomatic rationale that the simplest explanation is the most likely. Reality, however, is rife with complication. By allowing ourselves to gravitate towards explanations we perceive as simpler or more efficient, we actively overlook evidence that falls outside of our personal definitions of these ideas. The simplest explanation from the archaeologist's perspective cannot be the most likely, as it is inevitably based on incomplete information. Instead, taking the Maximal Speculation approach actively invests in including the outer limits of the possible in the discussion. This endeavor can feel infinite and unachievable, but it is not. The intent is not to exhaustively identify all possible explanations, but rather to discourage avoidance of the most extreme explanations.
Uploads
Papers by Jennifer Todaro
I propose a new methodology that I call Maximal Speculation, which asks, "What is the widest possible range of interpretations?" and "Can any of these be disproven or proven less likely?". By only requiring proof of impossibility rather than of possibility, this approach prevents more radical interpretations from languishing unexamined. Rather than attempting to prove a given hypothesis, an opposite statement is crafted with the goal of disproving a null hypothesis. This distinction allows researchers to build a body of indirect evidence when direct evidence is not available.
In Paleolithic archaeology, there is a reflex to advance only the most parsimonious hypotheses. This seems to stem from the axiomatic rationale that the simplest explanation is the most likely. Reality, however, is rife with complication. By allowing ourselves to gravitate towards explanations we perceive as simpler or more efficient, we actively overlook evidence that falls outside of our personal definitions of these ideas. The simplest explanation from the archaeologist's perspective cannot be the most likely, as it is inevitably based on incomplete information. Instead, taking the Maximal Speculation approach actively invests in including the outer limits of the possible in the discussion. This endeavor can feel infinite and unachievable, but it is not. The intent is not to exhaustively identify all possible explanations, but rather to discourage avoidance of the most extreme explanations.
I propose a new methodology that I call Maximal Speculation, which asks, "What is the widest possible range of interpretations?" and "Can any of these be disproven or proven less likely?". By only requiring proof of impossibility rather than of possibility, this approach prevents more radical interpretations from languishing unexamined. Rather than attempting to prove a given hypothesis, an opposite statement is crafted with the goal of disproving a null hypothesis. This distinction allows researchers to build a body of indirect evidence when direct evidence is not available.
In Paleolithic archaeology, there is a reflex to advance only the most parsimonious hypotheses. This seems to stem from the axiomatic rationale that the simplest explanation is the most likely. Reality, however, is rife with complication. By allowing ourselves to gravitate towards explanations we perceive as simpler or more efficient, we actively overlook evidence that falls outside of our personal definitions of these ideas. The simplest explanation from the archaeologist's perspective cannot be the most likely, as it is inevitably based on incomplete information. Instead, taking the Maximal Speculation approach actively invests in including the outer limits of the possible in the discussion. This endeavor can feel infinite and unachievable, but it is not. The intent is not to exhaustively identify all possible explanations, but rather to discourage avoidance of the most extreme explanations.