Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method

Abstract

Research Article| November 01, 2001 Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method Carol E. Cleland Carol E. Cleland 1Department of Philosophy and Center for Astrobiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Geology (2001) 29 (11): 987–990. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(2001)029<0987:HSESAT>2.0.CO;2 Article history received: 20 Feb 2001 rev-recd: 11 Jun 2001 accepted: 28 Jun 2001 first online: 02 Jun 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Carol E. Cleland; Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geology 2001;; 29 (11): 987–990. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(2001)029<0987:HSESAT>2.0.CO;2 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyGeology Search Advanced Search Abstract Many scientists believe that there is a uniform, interdisciplinary method for the practice of good science. The paradigmatic examples, however, are drawn from classical experimental science. Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled laboratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.