Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:39:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
526 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> No way! 20th-century American history, or any history, isn't a
> science. (I can say this quite confidently.)
Oh? Prove Clinton used to be president of the US. Can you? We're talking
100% prove. However, like science, you can show that it's ridiculously
likely that he WAS president. How? Analysis of evidence. We read the papers,
we ask people, we do our little research, and we come to the conclusion that
Clinton VERY likely WAS president.
Would you be so quick to judge if your 'experiments' were non-repeatable? Or
in disagreeance? If, for example, someone said he WASN'T president, and
someone else said he WAS, doesn't that shake your theory, if only in the
most minor respect? Suppose only 10% of your sources ('historical' papers,
1st hand witnesses, etc) said he was? Suppose only 1%? 100%? It may not be
'lab' experiments, but I'd say they're experiments all the same...
How else could you show it was likely that Clinton was president without
using the scientific method?
> Science is about
> objective measurement and conclusion; history, while often grouped
> with the "social sciences," is a member of the family of humanities,
> and as such is a liberal art. History is entirely about interpret-
> ation;
So you're arguing that history is something like faith? I.E. the study of
history isn't about making conclusions about the past, but simply memorizing
dates and events? That the facts aren't in dispute and no conclusions are
being made?
> Archaeology is based on repeatable lab tests? I don't know where
> you're doing your archaeology, but only the tools for verification
> are found in labs. Much of the knowledge is gained by study and
> inference of the unreproducible. Kind of like history, really.
> So claiming that history is a science also doesn't fully grok
> the concept. ;)
Ah, but the problem with what you're saying is that you're not thinking
about the repeatable that's occurred. You're assuming that I'm meaning that
the 'experiment' of finding a particular dinosaur fossil is that which must
be repeatable. It's not.
Let's say instead that (in some ridiculously screwed up world) strata meant
nothing. You find that shoebox you threw away last week 120 feet underground
and dinosaur bones at 12 feet. And also at 500 feet. Let's say fossils
didn't follow repeated patterns-- that how far down they are means nothing
in relation to how old they are.
Let's further say that radioactive carbon dating didn't work. That shoebox
sometimes would test at 100 million years old, and sometimes test at 4 hours
old. Ditto a trillobite.
And going even FURTHER, let's say that bone-like rocks were found ALL over
the place-- they've even been witnessed to develop without having had some
creature die to make them.
Now you find a sauropod skeleton. Can you say anything about archeology?
About history? Archeology is very much indeed based on scientific analysis
of repeatable results. Are they all done 100% in a lab? Of course not.
That's why I said 'lab', not lab. After all, what's the difference between a
lab and the field? As far as I know, just experimental error... Basically,
take away 'science' in as far as the repeatable 'experiements', and what are
you left with in archeology?
> I think this is tenuous, but inasmuch as science is used to
> substantiate and enhance the body of evidence, yes. But the
> core assertions of archaeology are still somewhere in the nether
> realm between science and the humanities--as with all fields
> that deal with human behaviour and human civilization.
Ah... somewhere in between, eh? :)
What's science? (that's NOT 'humanity')
What's humanity? (that's NOT 'science')
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) No way! 20th-century American history, or any history, isn't a science. (I can say this quite confidently.) Science is about objective measurement and conclusion; history, while often grouped with the "social sciences," is a member of the (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
95 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
