Observational Science vs Historical Science
You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math
We respect your right to privacy. You can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Your cookie preferences will apply across our website.
Is there a difference? Please be honest.
>>8118618
What the hell is "historical science"? Do you mean difference between natural science and the study of humanities?
>>8118624
It's a term used by creationists to create a mental barrier in the sciences that evolution can't cross.
Basically: "We can't know what happened millions of years ago, so we'll use this book to tell us how it was. You don't have to worry about evolution, that doesn't apply to anything, you can throw it out."
Or: "it's your way or God's way."
>>8118624
It's the creationist way of saying "you weren't there so you can't know it's true" which applies to, as just one example, carbon dating. However, the bible is still infallible. It's pretty logical.
>>8118634
Huh, you learn something new every day I guess.
So, because we weren't around 3 billion years ago when proto-cells evolved into multicellular life, we can't know if evolution happened so we turn to the creationists' explanation? Or am I understanding this wrong?
Evolution is scientific theory based on empirical testing that helps us best explain how life diverges and produces different organisms. How is historical science actual science? There's nothing empirical about it. Trusting something unfalsifiable written in a book would be the equal of regarding a fictional story about the history of the universe as true... The difference is that you can observe evolution through experiments today. You can't do the same with a story.
>>8118634
That's the kind of thing that alienates normal people from religion, causing church attendance rates to go down.
>>8118647
>So, because we weren't around 3 billion years ago when proto-cells evolved into multicellular life, we can't know if evolution happened so we turn to the creationists' explanation?
Pretty much. "Historical science" is just a fancy way of saying "but were you there?".
>>8118647
You've hit it on the nose.
I think Richard Dawkins summed up the arguement quite clearly with this.
>idea a is supported with bountiful evidence
>idea b is supported with little to no evidence
>one small problem arises in idea a
>drop idea a and run to idea b
>>8118647
You have it right but have the term backwards - they use the term "historical science" to dismiss evolution and "observational science" to describe, basically, "verifying science in the present". I don't know where the bible lays, I suspect they don't label it science but suggest that it's the best account we'll ever have.
>>8118663
I can tell you. My old Chemistry textbook said that Tubal-Cain was the first metalworker. Not to mention my old biology textbook, which mentioned several strawmen. Heck, I even tried to debate my science teacher and he just used a glorified "were you there?" as a response.
>>8118659
They will go back up since the % of whites is going down significantly.
on a related note, how much did bill nye hurt science by debating kent ham?
>>8118717
Not much. Most people believed Nye won. But that doesn't stop ol Hambone's gravy train
Reminder that this is just another race of people. Not a species, just a race.
Bump
>>8119164
Fucking squiddlians goddamn raping our women and stealing our VCR's
Better yet, let us dance around the philosophy of the question and seek to prove it absurd.
Consider this, due to a quantifiable speed of light and the delay between sensory perception and cognition what indeed is truely observing an event? In a way one could posit that we never truely observe the nature of an occurence and instead.
Even the act of say observing a murder is no more evidence than the material remnace of such an act. In the paradym of materialistic determinism the ripple effect on any other set of particles is no more indicative of what truely "happened" than any other, given a correct interpretation.
Moreso even in some cases given that you cannot show another person a collection of light spectrum wave radiation.
EVEN SO, a more important question to ask ourselves is why 'observational vs historical'? Remember, do not fall into the amature philosopher's trap of arguing how a word feels over what and why it stands. Words exist to serve us and when a rhetorical device is implimented ( say a semantic point be raised) it would occationally behoove the layman to concider the why of such a device.
In this case and in my own judgment, i see Mr. Ham's use of 'observational vs historical' science as the last ditch efforts of an Australian ShitCunt with no better argument than, "Well... What if we just ignore everything that makes my argument sound fucking stupid and focus on Pathos for a change"
tl;dr No you retard
>>8118618
"Historical Science"
Even the Bible admits only god was around when the world was created.
