One of the issues archeologists come up against is the subjective - mythological records. They like to view themselves as 'scientists' that pursue objective proofs - look a tooth, or a needle, and here is the carbon dating - or whatever. There is a very strong impulse to not stray into human word-of-mouth 'contamination'. This has kept them away from astronomy as well, which is very odd, because the star positions themselves are not really changing, but the whole sky shifts as the earth wobbles on its axis- which gave this odd re-orientation of the temple structures on Malta, that could not be explained via the structures themselves - except by saying that the people building the structures were not competent, or something.

I came across this anti-subjectivity idea in recent academic work, where the beaks were pressuring us to write a thesis according to positivist lines - i.e., form a hypothesis and then try to 'prove' it using objectivity. A battle with the beaks ensued: me pointing out that hypotheses can never be proven a la Popper, they can only be disproven. Them saying, but this is how it must be done. Me: no this is categorically NOT how it must be done. Get thesis study guide, and it is all about setting up interviews or surveys (as if this is objective)- rigidly sticking to what went before. i.e. start by forming a hypothesis from the literature. Jeez. What about current real-world problems? There are plenty of academic examples where subjectivity is allowed in because one is studying human morality or belief systems - take law for example. So, one can find humanities subjects that use subjectivity, and connect dots across disciplines, but the idea of multidisciplinary theses are still very rare.

So yes, academics are set in their ways, but there are notable divergencies, and one can certainly demonstrate a history of it. It's just that subjectivity must be defended more rigorously, because the positivists are so rigid in their thinking, and will jump on any conjecture - even as hypotheses are formed from that very conjecture.

One of the issues archeologists come up against is the subjective - mythological records. They like to view themselves as 'scientists' that pursue objective proofs - look a tooth, or a needle, and here is the carbon dating - or whatever. There is a very strong impulse to not stray into human word-of-mouth 'contamination'. This has kept them away from astronomy as well, which is very odd, because the star positions themselves are not really changing, but the whole sky shifts as the earth wobbles on its axis- which gave this odd re-orientation of the temple structures on Malta, that could not be explained via the structures themselves - except by saying that the people building the structures were not competent, or something.

I came across this anti-subjectivity idea in recent academic work, where the beaks were pressuring us to write a thesis according to positivist lines - i.e., form a hypothesis and then try to 'prove' it using objectivity. A battle with the beaks ensued: me pointing out that hypotheses can never be proven a la Popper, they can only be disproven. Them saying, but this is how it must be done. Me: no this is categorically NOT how it must be done. Get thesis study guide, and it is all about setting up interviews or surveys (as if this is objective)- rigidly sticking to what went before. i.e. start by forming a hypothesis from the literature. Jeez. What about current real-world problems? There are plenty of academic examples where subjectivity is allowed in because one is studying human morality or belief systems - take law for example. So, one can find humanities subjects that use subjectivity, and connect dots across disciplines, but the idea of multidisciplinary theses are still very rare.

So yes, academics are set in their ways, but there are notable divergencies, and one can certainly demonstrate a history of it. It's just that subjectivity must be defended more rigorously, because the positivists are so rigid in their thinking, and will jump on any conjecture.