ABSTRACT
Many books on early man, the history of archaeological research, etc., begin with a recitation of the “obviously” faulty views advanced by our predecessors. A delightful book of this type is Wendt’s (1956) In Search of Adam, which traces many ideas that, from a modern perspective, appear quite bizarre. How could anyone seriously think that the bones of a mammoth were those of a unicorn? Excursions into the thoughts of previous generations frequently leave us wondering, “Why were they so stupid in those days?” “How could they believe such things?” This is particularly true of those who today are committed to a strict empiricist’s position. The strict empiricist believes that to be a good scientist one must clear one’s mind of bias and observe nature objectively; if this is done properly and the observer is astute and honest, then the truths of natural history will be clearly apprehended. In the strict empiricist’s view of the world, those who do not see nature in the same way must be suffering from a lack of objectivity; all unbiased, objective observers should see the same things, since “nature does not lie.” Disagreements among observers are generally considered to derive from flaws in the character of at least some of the disputants.
