I finally thought to ask ChatGPT something helpful.
If a person describes what they see in a photograph, are they doing science?
ChatGPT
Describing what one sees in a photograph is not necessarily considered science on its own. However, it could be a part of a scientific investigation or analysis if it is done in a systematic and rigorous way as part of a scientific method.
For example, if a scientist is studying the anatomy of a particular species of insect and is using photographs to document the various features of the insect's body, describing what they see in the photograph would be part of their scientific analysis. In this case, the description of the photograph would be part of a broader scientific investigation, and the scientist would likely be asking research questions, formulating hypotheses, and testing those hypotheses through experiments or further observations.
On the other hand, if a person is simply describing what they see in a photograph for personal or aesthetic reasons, without any scientific questions or investigation, then it would not be considered science.
If a person describes what they see in a photograph including trees, rivers, and a settlement mound, are they doing science?ChatGPT
Describing what one sees in a photograph of a landscape, including trees, rivers, and a settlement mound, is not necessarily considered science on its own. However, it could be a part of a scientific investigation or analysis if it is done in a systematic and rigorous way as part of a scientific method.
For example, if a geologist is analyzing a photograph of a landscape to identify the types of rock formations and geological features present in the area, describing what they see in the photograph would be part of their scientific analysis. In this case, the description of the photograph would be part of a broader scientific investigation, and the geologist would likely be asking research questions, formulating hypotheses, and testing those hypotheses through experiments or further observations.
Similarly, if an archaeologist is analyzing a photograph of a landscape to identify and document the features of a settlement mound, describing what they see in the photograph would be part of their scientific analysis. In this case, the description of the photograph would be part of a broader scientific investigation, and the archaeologist would likely be asking research questions, formulating hypotheses, and testing those hypotheses through further observations or archaeological fieldwork.
On the other hand, if a person is simply describing what they see in a photograph of a landscape for personal or aesthetic reasons, without any scientific questions or investigation, then it would not be considered science.
Suppose an amateur examining a photograph spots what they think is a settlement mound. Is that science?
ChatGPT
If an amateur examining a photograph spots what they believe to be a settlement mound, it can be seen as a preliminary step or an observation that could potentially contribute to a scientific investigation. However, the act of spotting it alone does not constitute full-fledged science.
In scientific practice, observations and hypotheses are typically subject to further investigation, testing, and analysis. For the amateur's observation to be considered part of a scientific process, it would require additional steps such as:
Verification: The amateur's observation would need to be verified through further evidence, such as comparing the photograph with other sources, consulting experts, or conducting fieldwork to confirm the presence of a settlement mound.
Research questions: The amateur's observation could prompt the formulation of research questions, such as the age or significance of the settlement mound, the cultural context, or its potential relationship to other archaeological features in the region.
Collaboration: To advance the investigation, collaboration with experts or professionals in the relevant field, such as archaeologists or geographers, may be sought to provide expertise, guidance, or further analysis.
Documentation and analysis: The amateur's observation could lead to a systematic documentation and analysis of the photograph and the potential settlement mound, including measurements, mapping, and comparisons with known archaeological features.
In summary, while an amateur's observation of a potential settlement mound in a photograph can be an initial spark for scientific investigation, it would need to be followed by further steps and collaboration with experts to be considered part of a scientific process.
______________
There you have it. ChatGPT is making roughly the same point I made when I argued that
this blog is not archaeology. I argued that spotting tells is not really science. ChatGPT thinks it is not "full-fledged science". I dread seeing it described as partially fledged science, so, I think it is important to just say it is not science, even if it can be understood as part of a scientific undertaking.
