Here's a thought. If we are going to talk about the 'science of archaeology' can we all at least provide a reference to our facts. This I am directing at both sides. There is no point in having a debate if you are going to "watchtower out" ie. 'studies show' ad nauseum.
BurnTheShips - People believe many irrelevant things. (Like the misguided concept that putting butter on a burn is somehow a good idea) Just because it is not relevant doesn't mean it doesn't need to be debunked.
leavingwt - Why is faith sufficient? You don't explain your willingness to dismiss evidence at all in your post. Would you trust a doctor that told you if you painted your toe blue it would fix your broken leg? What if he told he REALLY believed it would work? What if there was a study on painting toes blue that showed no effect on broken legs?