Article contents
Methodological and Epistemic Differences between Historical Science and Experimental Science
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2022
Abstract
Experimental research is commonly held up as the paradigm of “good” science. Although experiment plays many roles in science, its classical role is testing hypotheses in controlled laboratory settings. Historical science (which includes work in geology, biology, and astronomy, as well as paleontology and archaeology) is sometimes held to be inferior on the grounds that its hypothesis cannot be tested by controlled laboratory experiments. Using contemporary examples from diverse scientific disciplines, this paper explores differences in practice between historical and experimental research vis-à-vis the testing of hypotheses. It rejects the claim that historical research is epistemically inferior. For as I argue, scientists engage in two very different patterns of evidential reasoning and, although there is overlap, one pattern predominates in historical research and the other pattern predominates in classical experimental research. I show that these different patterns of reasoning are grounded in an objective and remarkably pervasive time asymmetry of nature.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association
Footnotes
I am indebted to Alan Franklin, Marc Lang, and Stephen Leeds for comments and helpful suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper. This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to the University of Colorado's Astrobiology Institute.
References
- 232
- Cited by