The compatibility of processual and postprocessual archaeology has been heavily debated. This discussion is frequently phrased in terms of scientific vs. nonscientific/humanistic archaeology. We suggest that the “postprocessual debate” is based on a mischaracterization of science that is pervasive in archaeology, and is largely unnecessary when a more reasonable view of the nature of science is considered. To demonstrate this point, we begin our discussion by identifying several commonalities within most postprocessual approaches to provide a foundation for our discussion. We then consider the two classic criteria used to differentiate science and nonscience, Baconian inductivism and falsification, and demonstrate why these views lead to an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of science. We next examine seven attributes that are commonly accepted as characteristics of science in order to provide a more accurate view of the nature and workings of science. based on this discussion, we argue that much postprocessual research is in fact scientific, and we ultimately conclude that postprocessual approaches as currently applied can contribute to a scientific understanding of the archaeological record.
