Geology deals with rocks, water, sediments, etc. The latter are all part
of the subject matter of the experimental sciences, viz. physics,
chemistry, experimental biology, etc. How do you ever conclude otherwise
from my writings? That is the scientific basis of geology. Just as
forensic science reconstructs the history, say of a crime, these
experimental sciences are used also to reconstruct the history of earth.
That is historical geology.
Moorad
________________________________
From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 1:20 PM
To: George Murphy; Alexanian, Moorad; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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 <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com>
To: Alexanian, Moorad <mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu> ;
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 <mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: George Murphy <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com> ; Ted Davis
<mailto:tdavis@messiah.edu> ; 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/
<http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu
<mailto:tdavis@messiah.edu> >
To: <asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu> >;
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk
<mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> >; <alexanian@uncw.edu
<mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu> >
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 10:37 PM
Subject: [asa] historical science?
>>>> "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 13:37:52 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 10 2007 - 13:37:52 EDT