Isn’t that just the Duhem-Quine thesis? It’s not restricted to “historical science”. Which is why science doesn’t rely on absolute falsification.
1 Like
I note the added “strictly” and wonder whether the limitations that make historical claims unfalsifiable also make non-historical claims unfalsifiable.
I suspect that they do, and that whatever ‘reasoning’ that leads to historical claims being unfalsifiable applies equally to non-historical ones - which is why no examples have been provided.
3 Likes
It’s all in the word ‘strictly’ here. Patterns in data can compare better or worse to model predictions.
But the same is true for so-called “direct” observations of experimental results. I strictly cannot eliminate the explanation that I measured a weight to 125,09 grams because of some local disturbance unrelated to the actual mass of what I am weighing. No matter how many times I weigh it that just remains true.
For literally every example you can come up with, will ever dream or think about, or refer to in the future, I will be able to point out that “observational” science has the exact same problem you think undermines “historical” science.
9 Likes
This is why repeatability is important in operational science. Through repeated confirmations, we eliminate the possibility of such anomalies beyond any reasonable doubt. Historical science relies on an ever-dwindling set of clues which we must piece together to explain events which can never be repeated. If the events could be repeated, then we would be doing operational, not historical science.
So no, it is absolutely not the case that everything that makes historical science unfalsifiable applies equally to operational. Operational science is repeatable, and historical science is not.
Others here have replied, “But we can do repeated experiments to keep looking for more evidence for past events”. Sorry, that’s not what we mean by repeatability. Looking for clues is not experimentation.
Morton’s Demon must be at work, because I showed you an example of a repeatable experiment using historical data, and you were blinded to it.
Creation science makes a Special Pleading about what what Repeatability means. I think if we looked, everything they accept is accepted without repeatability, and everything they do not accept is “not repeatable”. Everyone else accepts repeatability in the context of historical data. It works very well in practice too.
I am going to skip the topic of non-repeatable miracles, but Glass Houses.
It’s a little silly to discuss Creation science in terms of repeatability when they do not even accept the Laws of Physics. Creation science violate laws of physics willy-nilly, while real science has to play by the rules. This is why I always emphasis that Creation science is apologetics. It hardly ever has a testable hypothesis, much less a repeatable experiment to test predictions.
Just to be sure you understand, try to name an example of a Creation science hypothesis that is both testable and repeatable. GE in particular ought to lend itself to laboratory experiments, where is the data?
4 Likes
Repeatability in both “historical” and “operational” science is to collect more data. You do the experiment again. In the case where you measure isotope ratios on some rocks, you either collect more samples and measure those, or repeat the measurements again, or go to different locations on the Earth to collect samples from. And so on.
The more data you collect, the stronger your confidence in your result. Both for “historical” and “operational” science.
Sorry, that just is included in what repeatability means.
2 Likes
Repeated confirmations of radioactive half-life measurements have eliminated the possibility of any anomalies beyond any reasonable doubt.
Repeated measurements of quantities of radioactive material in rocks and in erupted lava have eliminated the possibility of any anomalies beyond any reasonable doubt.
Repeated calculations of ages of rocks using isochron methods and the above measurements have eliminated the possibility of any anomalies beyond any reasonable doubt.
Those rocks are old.
2 Likes
And they all confirm established laws of physics which are also tested prospectively. We have evidence the laws of physics have been constant for the observable age of the universe, and a complete lack of evidence in support of consequences if the laws of physics had changed.
1 Like
No, everyone else manifestly does not accept repeatability with regards to historical science. The old addage that you cannot force the horse to drink applies here. I have shown you how even evolutionists who understand philosophy of science understand this basic point. If you want to just keep doubling down on being wrong here I can’t help you any further.
Historical creation science is no more testable or repeatable than any other historical science. That’s the point. We need something besides science to give us a baseline structural framework for history. We are not going to be able to figure it all out ourselves with no help. We need historical records we can rely on to give us a starting point. That’s exactly what the Bible is. This right here is how science began, and for those who are not blinded by hubris it is still how it remains to this day.
Name one. I bet you $20 that the Lesson of Tiktaalik doesn’t fall to their definition of “repeatability”. I nominate @giltil to adjudicate, if he is willing.
Loser to pay up by means of a gift card of some sort, Amazon, Starbucks, etc..
If we have solid evidence - and a good deal of testing - why would we need anything more. And do we have anything more of even similar reliability? It seems not.
That is what YECs say. But it is far from obviously true. Genesis seems to be a collection of myths and legends set down centuries to millennia after the supposed events. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise there is no reason to think it even close to being as reliable as the evidence you want us to ignore.
And science abandoned it when it was found to be untenable - even prominent Christians recognised that the evidence pointed to an old Earth as Joel Duff documents.
And I hardly think it is hubris to disagree with Creationists - especially when they make claims that seem to be clearly false. YECs are not Gods.
4 Likes
“[Historical hypotheses] can never be tested by experiment, and so they are unscientific … . No science can ever be historical.”
-Dr. Henry Gee
Gee, H., In search of deep time, The Free Press, New York, p. 267, 1999 (Quoted in:
Cleland, C., Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method, Geology 29(11):987; 2001.)
Dr Carol Cleland’s writings on what she calls “historiographic science” make it clear she sees the distinction–but I have written rebuttals to her claims that historical science should be viewed on an even playing field with experimental science, because her arguments are weak.
Gil will be offline for some hours yet. Do you care to nominate a second adjudicator?
ETA: you might also make the quote the definitions to be used, to make life easier for whoever adjudicates.
Genesis was definitely written long after the events it describes, unless Moses had access to earlier documents we know nothing about today. The claim is not that the Bible is reliable because it was always written close to the events it describes (though in the case of the New Testament it definitely was). The claim is that the Bible is divinely inspired. And the Bible is most certainly the only book we humans possess that can actually back up that claim by writing down events hundreds or even thousands of years before they come to pass. Regarding the ‘big picture’ evidence for the Bible, I have addressed that as well.
No, “science” abandoned it when it was found to be politically expedient.
It is to the great shame of those Christians who abandoned the historic faith and the clear teaching of scripture rather than defending it.
It isn’t hubris to ignore YECs, it is hubris to ignore God’s word and decide you don’t need to regard its clear teaching.
This quote is highly problematical for multiple reasons:
-
It is not from the page that Paul cites – which is the final page of the index in the book.
-
It is in fact from two separate pages (multi-page ellipsis!
) in the book’s introduction. -
It is not clear, to me at least, that Gee was talking about all “historical hypotheses”, or merely a subset of them, and I would note that Clelend herself presented these as her own words not Gee’s:
The most trenchant criticism of historical science, however, comes from an editor of Nature, Henry Gee (1999, p. 5, 8), who explicitly attacked the scientific status of all hypotheses about the remote past; in his words, ‘‘they can never be tested by experiment, and so they are unscientific. . . No science can ever be historical.’’
It was Paul himself who inserted Cleland’s words into Gee’s quote.
Here is the full paragraph from p5:
And from page 8:
I would further note that some philosophers consider that Cleland herself has been unreasonably harsh on historical sciences:
Historical geology: Methodology and metaphysics
ABSTRACT
This chapter engages critically with Carol Cleland’s recent work in the philoso- phy of historical science. Much of the practice of historical geology fits her description of the methodology of “prototypical historical science” quite well. However, there are also important kinds of historical scientific research that do not involve what she calls the search for the smoking gun. Moreover, Cleland’s claim that prediction is not a major factor in historical natural science depends on taking an overly restrictive view of what counts as a prediction. Finally, Cleland’s approach, which emphasizes methodology, is just one possible way of thinking about the difference between historical and nonhistorical science. Rather than focusing on the “how” of historical science, one can also focus on the “what” of historical science—on the nature of the processes and events that historical geologists study.
4 Likes
There is rather more to Henry Gee’s quote than you make out, but apart from that I want to ask you a question (again) :
If this is your position on historical hypotheses, do you likewise consider Creation Science and Flood Geology unscientific?
Thank you for your response.
2 Likes
In the interest of making life easier for the adjudicator, here is a link to Gee’s book on Internet Archive. Anyone can register for a free account and borrow the book to read.
The quote comes from page 5 of the introduction. Here is some additional context:
For example, the evolution of Man is said to have been drive by improvements in posture, brain size, and the coordination between hand and eye, which led to technological achievements such as fire, the manufacture of tools, and the use of language. But such scenarios are subjective. They can never be tested by experiment, and so they are unscientific. They rely for their currency not on scientific test, but on assertion and the authority of their presentation.
With respect to definitions, there is this from page 7:
Testability is a central feature of the activity we call science. Some have sought a kind of special dispensation for palaeontology as an ‘historical’ science, that it be admitted to the high table of science even thought palaeontologists cannot, classically, do the kinds of experiments other scientists take for granted.
And from page 8:
But we already know that Deep Time does not support statements based on connected narrative, so to claim that palaeontology can be seen as an historical science is meaningless: if the dictates of Deep Time are followed, no science can ever be historical.
On pages 6 and 7, he outlines (presumably to be elaborated later in the book, I’ve only read the introduction so far) what is testable in palaeontology via cladistics.
2 Likes
You seem to be mistaken as to what an experiment is, and while you speak of repeatability in terms of historical science and operational science (whatever that is supposed to be), what you are not discussing is observation, the common ground of science.
In your world, when Galileo turned his telescope on the moons of Jupiter for one of the most pivotal discoveries in history, that does not count because it was an observation and not an experiment - Galileo did not manipulate the solar system, or have a control planet. He just used a new tool at his disposal to extend the power of observation which challenged the leading paradigm of his day. And those moons? They can be viewed repeatedly, I’ve done it with my backyard telescope. If you do the same thing again and again and again, that is repetition Paul, even if you insist it somehow isn’t.
On the other end of the scale, when Robert Hook first used a microscope to discover cells in cork, and Leeuwenhoek further found them in other tissues, there was no experiment beyond just using a microscope for observation.
It is common to reference instruments which will observe, but not manipulate, as experiments. See what is out there. Spectrometers on the James Webb and gravitational wave detectors are experiments, gathering data, but not playing with test tubes like your childhood 50 experiments chemistry kit. Whether manipulated, and with controls, or not, scientific data are observational outcomes however obtained, and are not constrained by your arbitrary and naive definitions. Science has, and will continue, to extend as the reach of instruments continues to improve observation.
And such observations can be predicted from our understanding of the past. The CMB was predicted by the Big Bang Theory, was found as predicted, and that finding is not only repeatable, but is an unavoidable and ever present feature of the sky night and day. Repeat that observation as often as you care.
Often, predictions arise from what YEC would call historical science, which are confirmed by observation by the techniques falling under what they call operational science. When it was noted that humans carry one fewer chromosomes that other great apes, it was hypothesized that a fusion event joined two. This has been confirmed and studied in detail using the tools of operational science. It is all of a cloth. Feel free to repeat those studies as often as you need. The discovery of Tikaalik happened directly as a result of prediction from knowledge of both geological and evolutionary past.
Predictions can also arise from the consilience of science. Despite your belief otherwise, the carbon atoms in your body were are forged in the heat of stellar interiors. The nuclear process by this could happen was for some time unknown, but Hoyle insisted there had to be a way, because we are indeed here and our global understanding of the past demands stellar nucleosynthesis. Eventually, the synthesis path was discovered by Fowler at Caltech. Repeatable as often as is necessary. It is not just our knowledge of the present which illuminates the past, understanding the past also explains the present.
Speaking of nucleosynthesis, the refusal to acknowledge scientific understanding of process can make YEC ridiculous. Not long ago, YEC denied that fusion was the driver for the sun’s radiation, preferring active gravitational contraction, because apart from fusion, the solar radiance could not be sustained for evolutionary time frames. They seized on dubious solar radius measurements and a measured deficit of solar neutrinos to argue their case, while actual scientists assumed that the sun was ancient, and so set about developing more comprehensive neutrino observatories. Of course, as the sun is old and fusion is real, the predicted missing neutrinos were indeed discovered, again validating deep time. Accepting reality has heuristic value, and denying reality means creationists never discover anything or solve any problems.
The progress of science has been driven by the practitioners of science. If it were up to the navel gazers of theologians and philosophers, we would still be treating your fever by letting your blood. And where does YEC fit in all this? Observational science is not neutral, and is devastating the the creationist program. Creation science will never, ever, have equivalence to scientific rigor, and the balance will never, ever, be tipped by the dogma holding you in thrall.
There is unity in science just as there is in the natural world, with experimentation, validation, and observation all playing vital roles. Your divide and conquer rhetorical devices have no bearing on reality. So give your historical vs operational distinction a break. Think observation.
6 Likes
Genesis 1 in the form we have it was far more likely written during the Babylonian exilr
While it was not claimed, the distance between the tine of writing and the events is certainly relevant to assessing the reliability. And indeed the Gospels are clearly not historically reliable.
No, it can’t. I know that for a fact.
Sorry, I don’t like videos - and I doubt it will add much that I haven’t already heard.\
In the 18th and 19th Centuries? Seriously?
That;s your opinion, yet Genesis 1 equally “teaches” that the created world matched the beliefs of the people of that place and time. But you don’t seem to accept that.
By which you mean disagreeing with Creationist claims about God’s word and its supposedly clear teachings. So yes. You ARE claiming that it is hubris to disagree with Creationists.
4 Likes
A creationist has manipulated a ‘quote’?
I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
3 Likes