The prototype of historical science is forensic science. One makes assumptions
and views the existing data to confirm the assumptions. But one ought not
confuse the assumptions with the conclusions----evolutionary theory assumes
something and cannot conclude unambiguously that the assumption is a fact. The
predictions are backward in time, whereas in an experimental science like
physics, the predictions are mostly forward in time. Moorad
>===== Original Message From kbmill@ksu.edu (Keith B Miller) =====
>I have stated this several times in previous posts -- historical science IS
>predictive. Hypotheses are continually being tested by comparing
>expectations of the hypotheses with future observations. It doesn't matter
>that the events being reconstructed are in the past, only that the specific
>observation or data was unknown to the investigator previous to the
>prediction. This is done all the time. In my own research I am
>continually testing my expectation against new observations. If they prove
>out, my confidence in my hypothesis increases, if they don't that
>confidence is weakened. If expectation are frequently not met, the
>hypothesis is abandoned. That is the way all scientific theorizing works.
>
>The recent discovery of the walking whales from Pakistan are a great
>example within the field of paleontology.
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Keith B. Miller
>Department of Geology
>Kansas State University
>Manhattan, KS 66506
>kbmill@ksu.edu
>http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 08 2001 - 10:32:02 EST