{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.827272727272727, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On Explanation in Archaeology: A Rebuttal to Fritz and Plog

Abstract This paper argues that the recommendation by Fritz and Plog-that archaeologists adopt the Deductive-Nomological model of scientific explanation-mistakes a conceptual explication for a substantive recommendation. This misinterpretation results in the recommendation of tautologies. The detailed examination of this misinterpretation leads to an investigation of logical inference, the justification of the D-N model, the theory-laden nature of archaeological classificatory predicates, the epistemic status of the laws involved in this data-language, and the relation of the Fritz-Plog research program to the problem of devising and verifying worthwhile hypotheses in archaeology.