[sandworm101]

But we must still remember that archaeology in particular has been tainted by various non-scientific ideas. It is an old discipline that, at times, was used for political purposes. For instance this passage:

>>> Evidence had long suggested that humans first reached the Americas around 13,000 years ago, when Asian hunters crossed a now submerged landmass known as Beringia, which joined Siberia to Alaska and Yukon during the last ice age.

Talk to the Inuit about that one, the assumption that 'primitive' people were only ever able to walk over a land bridge rather than migrate along the ice coast in boats. Many longstanding ideas, especially those most convenient to questionable ethnographic ideas, need to be challenged. Frankly, I look very closely at any idea that appeared in 1950s/60s highschool textbooks, such as the above land bridge concept. The clovis/pre-clovis debate is so tied into US politics (ie the challenge to the "first" in "first nations") that everyone should be very careful.

[aaaaaatttuyy]

Yep, it does indeed have a nefarious past, and archaeologist tend to own this criticism and have worked towards genuinely working in an anti-colonial spirit (though there are still soooo many things that need to be improved upon).

Does this negate the work that has come out of archaeological research? Not necessarily.

Also note that genetics has been harnessed extensively for political purposes, especially in tandem with archaeology (see: eugenics). Does that de-legitimize its genuine practical applications today, when conducted in an ethical, respectful and regulated manner?

edited to convey what I actually meant to say, and mistyped due to being drunk.

[antonvs]

The issue isn't unique to archaeology.

Another notorious example was the discovery of the bacteria that causes most ulcers - the person who discovered that was vilified for at least a decade or so.

The root problem is simple: most people treat what they learned during their initial education as a kind of gospel, which they defend with the same fervour as any faith. This defense relies on things like social shaming to repel ideas that challenge their faith. This means that for an individual, stepping outside the faith has consequences, which has the effect of keeping most people in line and part of the defense against significant change.

Max Planck recognized this when he wrote, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”