Re: [asa] historical science?

George

I find your comments pretty well spot on and they reflect an understanding of the continuum from experimental to historical sciences.

Without going into great detail there are several methodologies within science and each have value and rigour in their own spheres. Of course much of geology cannot be experimental, but neither is much of comparative anatomy or pre-molecular biology.

I would like to give a response to Moorad but I cant understand what he is saying, except that he is not willing to recognise the scientific basis of geology as a historical science. No amount of explanation will help him.

Finally I have a degree in natural sciences (geology) from a respectable university where all sciences were regarded as equally scientific without all this nonsense of origins and operational science we have to put up with today

Michael

PS While there one postgraduate student was doing a Diploma in Geochemistry (equiv to M Sc) as he was going into forensic science
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: George Murphy
  To: Alexanian, Moorad ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] historical science?

  Evolutionary biology (just to take that "historical science") is not concerned just with one organism but with the species to which that organism belongs and with how that organism and species fits into a larger pattern of emergence and extinction of species. The uniqueness of the objects of study in this field doesn't differ in a major way from that of physics, where we may study falling bodies one at a time in order to find general laws governing such motion, & eventually motion in general.

  Cosmology has a somewhat different status because here the universe is unique - waiving for now speculations about a multiverse (which are indeed speculations, albeit interesting ones).

  Shalom
  George
  http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Alexanian, Moorad
    To: George Murphy ; Ted Davis ; asa@calvin.edu ; michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk
    Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:23 AM
    Subject: RE: [asa] historical science?

    The laws in the hard sciences---physics, chemistry, experimental biology, etc. ---are all generalizations of historical propositions. Surely, all phenomena that are studied by man have happened primarily in the past. The key is that the data is constituted by a multitude of similar experiments whose behavior is generalized, if possible, into laws.

    The distinction from the historical sciences is that they deal with unique events. There is only one universe and its corresponding unique history. Of course, there may be many stars or galaxies and viewing them all we can make some generalizations about the history of galaxies and stars. The same is true in forensic science where one uses the results of the experimental sciences, the hard sciences, to develop a theory of unique past occurrences. There is something new in forensic sciences and that is the behavior of criminals of a certain type. Witness the notion of profiling, which does not follow from the hard sciences themselves.

    This is the fundamental difference between the historical sciences and the hard sciences. Surely, in all endeavors, the human mind is used equally but the subject matter may be quite distinct and how one extracts new kind of knowledge from the data has to be clearly delineated.

    Moorad

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
    Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:41 AM
    To: Ted Davis; asa@calvin.edu; michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk; Alexanian, Moorad
    Subject: Re: [asa] historical science?

    I've been arguing on another thread that the importance of terminology shouldn't be overrated but I do think that classifying cosmology & geology as Geisteswissenschaften would be rather odd. According to Pannenberg (in Theology and the Philosophy of Science, p.72) the term goes back to Dilthey who used it to include "the totality of the sciences which have as their object historical and social reality." While "historical" is included, it seems pretty clear that human history is in view, as is clear from the fact that "human sciences" is used as the corresponding English term in the English translation of Pannenberg's book. & anyway, doesn't it seem strange to call geology a "science of the spirit"? (The breadth of the German word Geist should also be noted: It can mean "mind" as well as "spirit.") I see also that Cassel's defines Geisteswissenschaften as "the Arts (contrasted with the Sciences)" - which also seems strange.

    As to the substantive question, I think it would be simple enough to say that an "historical science" deals with phenomena that have happened primarily in the past. The qualification "primarily" is needed because of course geology (e.g.) does of course consider the present state of things even though a great deal of its work is inference about the past.

    The distinctive difficulties in such a science have to do with the facts that (a) the phenomena that are studied are in the past and (b) in most cases controlled experiments can't be done on the phenomena in question. Neither of these makes these sciences qualitatively different from a science like chemistry. We can observe the past via light signals & "time capsules" like fossils. The data from such observations is theory laden but that is true of all data to a greater or lesser extent. & while we can't do controlled experiments on, e.g., stars, there are so many stars of different types, ages, environments &c that the experiments have in effect been done for us.

    There is some point in talking about "historical sciences," though for geology & astronomy it might be better to say "natural historical sciences." But the notion that there is some fundamental difference between them and other natural sciences is spurious.

    Shalom
    George
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>

    To: <asa@calvin.edu>; <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; <alexanian@uncw.edu>

    Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 10:37 PM

    Subject: [asa] historical science?

>>>> "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> 09/09/07 7:01 PM >>>asks
> Michael Roberts:
>
> Some time ago, I asked for a definition of historical science and none was
> forthcoming. Why not advance a definition so that we know what you mean by
> the term "historical science?"
>
> ***
>
> Michael of course can answer for himself. Why don't I simply note that in
> one of his final books, Ernst Mayr said that he regards evolutionary biology
> as one of the Geisteswissenschaften (sciences of the spirit, such as
> history), not one of the Naturwissenschaften (sciences of nature). To the
> latter belong physics, chemistry, molecular biology, and the like; we can
> observe everything now and repeat it. To the former, cosmology, geology,
> and other "historical" sciences.
>
> This particular distinction is pushed to the extreme by YECs, and somewhat
> less but still strongly by some IDs. The fact that Mayr regarded it as
> having some legitimacy is very interesting, though he surely would not have
> pushed it as far as even the IDs. Mayr's view is, incidentally, referenced
> in at least one version of the science education standards advocated by the
> "Intelligent Design Network," which is technically not related to TDI (which
> hasn't copyrighted the term, ID) and is dominated by YECs, but sometimes the
> resemblance is close.
>
> Ted
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 10 13:21:52 2007