Loren Haarsma wrote on 7th May:
> I recommend that you use the category of "observational science" (a bridge
> between "empirical" and "historical") as a practical matter --- to make
> your arguments more convincing to scientists.
>
> You can, as you do, divide science into just two categories: "empirical"
> and "historical." You can delineate the very real differences between the
> two. That is a logically valid and practical way to study "science."
> Your arguments, if you frame them thus, might be very convincing to people
> who don't practice science on a regular basis, but I suspect that they
> will be ineffective on most practicing scientists.
I wondered how you might respond to my comments - and this approach
was not anticipated! However, I appreciate you sharing these
thoughts and I will endeavour to watch the way I frame my "arguments".
> Scientists see the entire range of empirical to historical science as a
> unified whole. We are not formally trained to do this, but it flows
> naturally from the subject matter. If you give a scientist a few minutes,
> she can probably think of half a dozen examples of where the results of
> historical and empirical science feed into each other very intimately,
> each making reciprocal predictions on the other.
I fully accept this. I see it happen time and time again. And yet,
I also see people using arguments based experience gained from
empirical science but applying them to origins. How can we best help
people recognise what they are doing!
> .....
> In order to convince scientists that there are important differences
> between historical and empirical science, you are also going to have to
> talk about the important similarities and the important bridges (e.g.
> observational science) between the two. That way, scientists who read
> your work will hear you give what appears to be a more _complete_ picture
> of science. Then they'll be happy with you, and perhaps they'll be happy
> with your conclusions, too.
This is helpful to me - it's a good maxim too (always look for
bridges!).
Just a short personal comment - taking up references to "arguments",
"convincing" others, etc. I do send posts hoping to influence others
- but that is not my primary objective. I think I might be very
disappointed with the results of such labours! I recognise that there
are many people with expertise on this reflector - who are worth
listening to and learning from: my first objective. I also recognise
that my arguments are imperfect, and this reflector is a wonderful
route to refine ideas and clarify thought: my second objective. So I
expect to change in some way by participating. I am grateful to all
participants for the thought they give to the various threads.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***