Sorry if I get your views a bit incorrect here - I accidently deleted
your post earlier.
I'd like you, if you have time, to clarify your views of the difference
between "historical science" and "causal science."
You stated, if I remember correctly, that "historical science" is just
about putting together history, whereas "causal science" is about finding
causes happening now. Frankly, I don't think this is representative of
what science does at all.
First, both "historical science" and "causal science" has to construct
history about the past. The only difference is that somewhere you've
created an artificial distinction regarding how far in the past. Even
pure controled lab experiments work in the past. This is because in the
lab, you generate an event or series of events and record the data. To
determine the cause of those events, the data must be evaluated - that
is, they are evaluating events that occurred in the past.
Secondly, what you are attempting to define as "historical science" is
100% concerned about finding causes. Finding out what happened is only a
small portion of the battle. It's much more important to find the cause
of past events. The whole point of sciences like geology is to figure
out how the earth _works_ so we can deal with it better. For example,
nuclear waste is a big issue. How to store it and where to store it is a
big problem. Geological studies can provide strong insight about nuclear
waste disposal. How? Take a look at the Oklo natural fission reactors
in Gabon, Africa. Here we have a prime example of many nuclear reactors
stored in the earth. Evaluating the causes of reactor formation,
termination, and storage is only partly historical, it is also causal.
I don't think the distinction between what you call "historical" and
"causal" is clear enough, at least for me. Could you please elaborate?
Tom