Do the some of the theories that are produced in the historical sciences
(such as the theory of evolution) contain unobservable quantities? Does
the inclusion of an unobservable in a theory preclude it from being a
scientific theory? And the related question: Are all observables
theoretical?
-----Original Message-----
From: David Campbell [SMTP:bivalve@email.unc.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 7:22 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: historical versus experimental science (from possible impact...)
>Can a scientific theory be developed based primarily on explaining what
>happened or must it develop by making hard predictions about what will
>happen (in a given experimental set up) and then testing those
predictions?
All science has to be developed based on what happened, whether it is what
happened in an experiment done last week in the lab or the evidence about
what happened five million years ago. The difference to me seems more
quantitative than qualitative, relating to the amount of experimenting that
can be done. It also varies much more with the specific question than the
broad field. A lot of geology is experimental, such as Glenn examining the
evidence of various tests and deciding where to try to find oil. If the
well produces, his predictions were right. Other areas of historical
science make specific predictions about what should be found if you study a
certain rock or about what you will find if you replicate what seems to
have been the conditions of formation for the sample at hand
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 16:52:09 EST