To add to David's chemistry experiment example, in this case the data are,
generally, removed from the interpretation not only in time but also in
kind. The data produced by chemistry experiments often consist of
absorption of electromagnetic radiation over a spectrum of frequencies.
The interpretation, however, usually has something to do with atoms and
molecules and electron orbitals and so on, yet, no molecules or electrons
or any such thing were observed. In this sense, observing a structural
pattern in a rock out-cropping and subsequently interpreting something
about sedimentation is really no different than looking at an FTIR spectra
and interpreting something about the kinds of chemical bonds present
between sorbed molecules and a clay surface. The monikers "historical" and
"empirical" do not provide two disjoint categories. All science may well
fit into both categories.
-----Original Message-----
From: bivalve [SMTP:bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 12:11 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: historical science, from Payne-Miller
Although the difference between historical science and that dealing with
present-day events has its uses, it is quite blurry. For example, an
experiment in a chemistry lab seems to be a straightforward example of
non-historical science. Yet the analysis of the data is an attempt to
reconstruct the historical events that transpired shortly before in the
lab. Likewise, the data interpretation depends on the assumption of
reliability of historical evidence about previous experiments, as well as
on the constancy of natural laws. Conversely, a study on the forming of a
particular rock can involve various experiments to simulate different
possibilities, several analyses of its component parts, and other
activities just as empirical as any other analysis.
It should also be kept in mind that the reliability of historical evidence
is crucial to Christianity. To dismiss historical science as history and
therefore unreliable (a claim that goes beyond what Bill said but is
presented by some young earth advocates) calls the Bible into question. By
making science (as defined by them) the most authoritative source of
information, they show themselves guilty of scientism even as they accuse
others of it.
Dr. David Campbell
"Old Seashells"
Biology Department
Saint Mary's College of Maryland
18952 E. Fisher Road
St. Mary's City, MD 20686-3001 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
Fax: 301 862-0996
"That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks"-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droigate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 18 2001 - 23:54:30 EDT