That would be the Carol Cleland who used that terminology in her 2001 publication Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method, right? The publication where she concludes
When it comes to testing hypotheses, historical science is not inferior to classical experimental science. Traditional accounts of the scientific method cannot be used to support the superiority of experimental work. Furthermore, the differences in methodology that actually do exist between historical and experimental science are keyed to an objective and pervasive feature of nature, the asymmetry of overdetermination. Insofar as each practice selectively exploits the differing information that nature puts at its disposal, there are no grounds for claiming that the hypotheses of one are more securely established by evidence than are those of the other.
She also, incidentally, would not agree with your assertion that historical nature is not subject to falsification:
Historical scientists are just as captivated by falsificationism as experimental scientists; as three
eminent geologists (Kump et al., 1999, p. 201) counsel in a recent textbook discussion of the extinction of the dinosaurs, ‘‘a central tenet of the scientific method is that hypotheses cannot be proved, only disproved.’’ … This doesn’t mean, however, that hypotheses about past events can’t be tested. As geologist T.C. Chamberlin (1897) noted, good historical researchers focus on formulating multiple competing (versus single) hypotheses. Chamberlin’s attitude toward the testing of these hypotheses was falsificationist in spirit; each hypothesis was to be independently subjected to severe tests, with the hope that some would survive.
In fact she spends a lot of the article pointing out that very few scientists focus on falsification so it’s really a moot point.
As can be seen from the above, your claim that the “asymmetry of overdetermination” makes historical science “fundamentally less trustworthy than operational science” is diametrically opposed to what Cleland actually wrote, because she says it is as securely established and isn’t inferior. Either you didn’t go to the source (as you claimed is your practise), or you did go to the source and are misrepresenting it.
Which is it?
P.S. This wasn’t what I was expecting to find - I was just looking to see whether Cleland’s use of the terms postdated creationist usage (which it does, since AiG records the distinction being used by Geisler (a biblical inerrantist) and Thaxton (an ID creationist) decades earlier. I should have remembered the 3 stage process for refuting creationists:
- See what they say (“Historical science … fundamentally less trustworthy than operational science.”)
- See what their source says (“there are no grounds for claiming that the hypotheses of one are more securely established by evidence than are those of the other”)
- Note the glaring discrepancy.