I would not use the term historical science nor forensic science if I did not
think there was no scientific elements in such disciplines. I for one do not
use the common terms of "social sciences" nor "political science." I rather
exchange the word "science" by the word "study." Man's reasoning ability can
be applied to non-scientific as well as scientific topics. Let us not confuse
reasoning with science only. Ask any biologist if they would like to do
biology the way a physicist does physics. The subject matter of historical
science and physics may be the same---since we could have done the physics if
we were there at the time--the essential difference is that one deals with
unique events whereas physics is an experimental science. Anyone that says
that evolution is a fact is claiming to have been there. One can infer that a
Big Bang may have happened, because of the expansion of the galaxies, but I
can assure you that if tomorrow we find out that that assumption is wrong,
then many cosmologists will come forward with alternative explanations and
theories. I am convinced that, short of Christ telling us in His second coming
that evolution is nonsense, there is no way of disproving the claims of the
evolutionists. Moorad
>===== Original Message From Michael Roberts <topper@robertschirk.u-net.com>
=====
> >
> > Then do experiments to test the validity of your claims. But do not rest
>on
>> what nature has already done since that is history not science.
>>
>
>
>I get sick of those who cannot/will not recognise historical science
>and assume physics is the only true science.Was it Bragg who said "all
>science is physics the rest is stamp-collecting". What Moorad does is to
>assume that science must always be experimental and simply ignores what
>William Whewell called the palaeoaetiological sciences way back in c1840.
>
>Historical and experimental sciences have different but overlapping
>methodologies. There ARE parallels between historical science and human
>history as both depend on ancient evidence. One artefacts are used in
>history we have moved away from relying on human recorders (as if an
>eyewitness is always reliable)
>
>I cant help feeling that Moorad and others simply balnk out historical
>science
>
>Michael
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 09 2001 - 21:55:44 EST