Several key elements need to be defined before we actually define what science is.

FACTS: are things we know to be true because we can sense them, measure them, manipulate them, and show them to someone else.

THEORIES: are possible explanations for why things are the way they are. You can test a scientific theory by gathering evidence that either disproves or supports it. Some scientific theories are so well supported that we think of them as fact. The best example of this would be our notion of gravity.

SPECULATION: is a guess about something that is unknow. It's different from a theory in two important ways: (1) it does not have enough evidence to support it, and (2) it cannot be tested scientifically. Speculation can be a bad thing if we accept it as "truth" without scrutinizing it. Speculation can also be a good thing in that it may lead to theories that can be tested, and therefore, elevated to a more meaningful status.

BIAS: is a slant on something guiding the rationale for inquiry or favoring certain evidence over others because it proves the point that was desired. Science is a human endeavor and therefore will always involve some form of bias. Recognition of sources is bias is critical.

Science is a way of thinking and employs a methodology of doing things in a certain way. The scientific methods entails several key points. It involves the identification of a research problem and a theoretic base. It involves the formulation of hypotheses and test implications. As such it creates a means by which to test the hypotheses. The scientific method involves rigorous analysis of a fair test of alternative explanations guided by the problems posed and confirmed by multiple lines of evidence. The method stives ultimately to explain. For archaeology, this means that the scientific method is used to help explain or understand social or cultural behavior based on the evidence that is uncovered.

Science, in general, consists entirely of theories - tentative, fluid proposals based on people's best bets for how the world works. It is because they are not set in stone that these ideas have a chance of being shifted closer toward describing reality. It is equally important that theories can be discarded in favor of something better. Our understanding of the world changes as we learn new things. Lost to most people outside of science is the exhilarating possibility that a theory that seems undeniable today could be overturned tomorrow. With archaeology that is particularly true as new finds and new methods of discovery are made.

Science is, foremost, a method of interrogating reality - proposing hypotheses that seem true and then testing them; trying to negate them, and elevating only the handful that survive to the status of a theory. In making sense of the world, one is always free to start from different assumptions.

Among the other fundamentals of science is the doctrine of uniformity, that the physical laws are the same now as they were in the past. And this is closely related to another unprovable assumption, “Occam's razor.” Given two explanations for a phenomenon, the simpler one is more likely to be true. Viewed this way, science may seem like just another religion - based on things one chooses to believe because they seem deep down to be true. Yet it is more. Science ultimately is a method of inquiry building toward understanding. Science strives to provide the best understanding that is possible at any one time.

We must be mindful of the dangers that come when a scientist mistakes a theory for eternal truth or speculation as theory, shoring up flimsy hypotheses by contorting the data. Equally dangerous is when a scientist attempts to make things happen with the data rather than rigorously exploring the evidence in the proper manner – by interrogating it. Good science may be two scientists attempting to prove the other incorrect. Good science is recognizing the sources of bias and attempting to find rational and logical evidence to support or refute a hypothesis. Above all it is testing with rigor and recognizing the limits of one’s data. Within archaeology this is known as the "conjunctive approach" offered by Walter Taylor to remind archaeologists that they must utilize all possible lines of inquiry in order to explain the past effectively.

Archaeology will always be able to offer theories about how people lived and why they may have done certain things. It is a story in a sense of what the past can tell us. A good story rests in how well the support is constructed and that rests in how well the scientific method was employed. In other words, how well was the story tested.

Archaeologists must also realize the bias they may have. As anthropologists, they must strive to view a culture in relative terms to how that culture they are studying viewed the world. This is known as "cultural relevatism" where we can not judge a culture on the basis of our own values. Again we can turn to Jeremy Sabloff for some insights and a reminder of how important it is to minimize bias:

In recent years, some scholars have been casting a critical eye at how Western culture has influenced the thinking of archaeologists. Clearly, archaeologists are not unbiased observers of the past, collecting completely objective data about the archaeological record. It was not too long ago, for example, that Maya archaeologists did not "see" peasant house mounds because they were not perceived as "important." And we can be certain that archaeologists in the not-too-distant future will shake their heads in disbelief at some of the assumptions and procedures of contemporary scholars.

LINK:

Reading by Jeremy Sabloff - Explore the perspectives of how bias can affect scientific study and yet how the studies of the Maya over decades of research tend to build a more accurate picture of the past.