Difference between revisions of "Historical science"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (bullets) |
m (hyperlink) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Historical science''' aims to describe phenomena of the past and reconstruct their causes.<ref>{{Cite book | + | '''Historical science''' aims to describe phenomena of the past and reconstruct their [[Cause and effect|causes]].<ref>{{Cite book |
| author=Laudan, R. | chapter=What's so Special about the Past? | page=58 | | author=Laudan, R. | chapter=What's so Special about the Past? | page=58 | ||
| title=History and Evolution | editor=Nitecki, M.H., and Nitecki, D.V. | year=1992 | | title=History and Evolution | editor=Nitecki, M.H., and Nitecki, D.V. | year=1992 | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| url=http://books.google.no/books?id=RUGKBdKawDUC&dq=signature+in+the+cell&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k4o9T-HHFaSF4gTYqpSSCA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ | | url=http://books.google.no/books?id=RUGKBdKawDUC&dq=signature+in+the+cell&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k4o9T-HHFaSF4gTYqpSSCA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ | ||
| quote= Gould ... emphasized that historical scientist tested their theories by evaluating their explanatory power.}}</ref> Historical scientists commonly use: | | quote= Gould ... emphasized that historical scientist tested their theories by evaluating their explanatory power.}}</ref> Historical scientists commonly use: | ||
| − | *the type of reasoning named ''[[abductive reasoning|abduction]]''<ref name="Signature"/>, | + | *(i) the type of reasoning named ''[[abductive reasoning|abduction]]''<ref name="Signature"/>, |
| − | *''inference to the best explanation'' and | + | *(ii) ''inference to the best explanation'' and |
| − | *''argument from analogy''.<ref name="LENNOX">{{cite book | + | *(iii) ''argument from analogy''.<ref name="LENNOX">{{cite book |
|author=John C. Lennox | |author=John C. Lennox | ||
|title=God's undertaker. Has science buried God? | |title=God's undertaker. Has science buried God? | ||
Revision as of 19:09, October 19, 2012
Historical science aims to describe phenomena of the past and reconstruct their causes.[1]
When trying to explain past phenomena, historical scientists try to construct a set of hypotheses about the causes and then look for a so called "smoking gun", a piece of evidence which indicates that one of the hypotheses might be a better explanation than the others.[2][3] Historical scientists commonly use:
- (i) the type of reasoning named abduction[3],
- (ii) inference to the best explanation and
- (iii) argument from analogy.[4]
References
- ↑ Laudan, R. (1992). "What's so Special about the Past?", in Nitecki, M.H., and Nitecki, D.V.: History and Evolution. SUNY Press. ISBN 0791412113. Retrieved on 7 February 2010.
- ↑ Cleland, C.E. (September 2002). "Methodological and Epistemic Differences between Historical Science and Experimental Science" (PDF). Philosophy of Science 69: 474–496. http://spot.colorado.edu/~cleland/articles/Cleland.PS.Pdf. Retrieved 25.1.2012.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Meyer, Stephen C. (2008). Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperOne, 150-153. ISBN 978-0-06-147279-2. “Gould ... emphasized that historical scientist tested their theories by evaluating their explanatory power.”
- ↑ John C. Lennox (2009). God's undertaker. Has science buried God?. Oxford, England: Lion Hudson, 204. ISBN 978-0-7459-5371-7.