Observational Science Vs Historical Science

Improved Essays
Science is capable of explaining and verifying many things, but it cannot explain or verify everything. The word “science” comes from the Latin word “scientia” which means “knowledge”. Science is the knowledge and study of facts in the natural world and the process of experimenting and observing the facts in order to draw generalized conclusions. Science is made up of the knowledge revealed to and discovered by mankind. This is why science cannot prove everything, because we do not know everything; scientist do not have all the answers they are simply guessing. When speaking of science, it is important to differentiate between observational science and historical science. Observational science is that which can be observed and tested …show more content…
Historical science is knowledge we exert concerning the past based on the observational remnants of the present. It is a belief that cannot be scientifically proven as it cannot be reproduced in the present. Put another way, we cannot make definitive conclusions concerning something that was only observable in the past. The origins of our universe is a great and much debated example of historical science. Both creationists and evolutionists must use historical science when theorizing on our origins. However, evolution is taught today as observational science; an observable proven fact. Ken Ham, a christian scientist and creationist, explains this problem, and the limitations of historical science, in his book The Lie, “Most people have the wrong idea about what the creation/evolution/age of the earth questions involve. Instead of perceiving the real issue, they have been deceived into believing that evolution/millions of years is science and that the Bible’s account of origins is religion. But this is not so...There is a big difference between knowledge gained by observation(ie the knowledge that helps to build our technology) and …show more content…
It is because of the frightening thought that we as individuals can never truly know everything there is to know about the universe and the world we live in. If we as individuals cannot know everything, we would feel safer if at least some person out there did. Then that person could make the more informed, correct decisions in regards to important matters. This wish to believe that someone in the world knows “everything” is what helps to fuel the false belief that “Science can prove anything.” Scientist may not come right out and say it, but if they present their theories and hypothesis in a manner intended to convince the general public, without first cautioning the possible fallibility of their statements, the scientist are, in essences, pretending to know it all. It is vital to remember that scientist are fallible human beings just like us, they are not some unbiased enlightened people in white coats. Science, the ability to know from observation, is limited. Therefore, if individuals believe that scientific claims are conclusive, they will construct pillars of fake laws and a foundation of fabrication which will crumble future generations. In a place and time where many individuals take the word of scientists as law, we must be careful to remember this fact. We cannot assume that because a teacher or scientist or uses the statement “science

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    The reason for why I would not choose Popper 's view is his standing against an empiricist view of science along with his falsification principle. It does not take into account observational and descriptive science such as social science, medicine and psychology. Even though Kuhn 's view is also not compatible with empricism-actually logical empricism, his paradigm-driven science view is much compelling to me. I find more compelling it for two reasons. First reason is Kuhn 's role of history in science and paradigm.…

    • 944 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Methodological naturalism is not a suitable paradigm for science, because science is used to explain why things are the way they are. If one excludes a particular possibility of explanation, just for the sake of common ground or because they don 't believe in that possibility, then they 're not keeping an open mind, which is an important part of finding explanations. No one discovers the truth with a closed mind. Long Answer There are five necessary presuppositions of science. Each one is necessary to presume in order to practice science and they can not be established by science itself.…

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    “It’s part of historical consciousness to learn the same thing: that there is no “correct” interpretation of the past, but that the act of interpreting is itself a vicarious enlargement of experience from which you can benefit” (Gaddis, 10). Even though there is no single truth that is agreed on, one can learn from the experiences and knowledge that comes from attempting to find the truth. Another important difference that Gaddis writes about is that some natural scientists are able to repeat their experiments in order to determine the truth and what is happening, but historians do not have the ability to do that. He writes, “we cannot relive, retrieve, or rerun it as we might some laboratory experiment or computer simulation” (Gaddis, 3). He tells his readers that historians can only study something that has already happened, so they lack the ability of scientists to be able to repeat these events in order to further their study of them.…

    • 1147 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It’s no question that any good scientific theory must adequately explain and predict an observation, however, there is much controversy regarding the attitudes taken towards these theories (DeWitt 71). There are two types of people in the world: realists and instrumentalists, or anti-realists. Realits believe that in order for a theory to be acceptable, it must also “reflect the way things really are,” which is clearly the intuitive way to go (DeWitt 73). The sole aim for realists is to give a true picture of the world, whereas instrumentalists’ think the real goal is for a theory to have empirical adequacy (Okasha 55). For the anti-realist, the matter of whether or not a theory is true is irrelevant if it accurately predicts or describes a…

    • 1003 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Karl Popper Falsification

    • 1527 Words
    • 7 Pages

    This allows for science to produce errors and mistakes, certainly not a negative thing in the eyes of every true scientist. Popper and the scientific community of all eras would argue that it is necessary to find falsifying evidence in order to more efficiently progress in the field. With all this said, a frequent criticism of this doctrine claims that the assertion that Popper is making cannot itself be subjected to falsification. This renders the need for it to be applied to suggested scientific theories as hypocritical and invalid. However, from the conception of the doctrine, through the evolution that…

    • 1527 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Philosopher Karl Popper suggested that it is impossible to prove a scientific theory true using induction, since it is hard to find evidence that will assure us that contrary evidence will not be traced. To argue this, Karl Popper suggested that proper science is accomplished by a method he referred to as deduction. Deduction involves the process of falsification. Falsification is a particular specialized aspect of hypothesis testing. The falsification process generally involves the process of stating some output from a particular theory form and then researching using conflicting or incompatible cases using experiments or observations.…

    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Historical Conflicts of Science and Religion Evolutionary biology is a relatively modern scientific subject which has appeared to rouse great conflict with organized religion. This paper seeks to use properties of NOMA to dispel the alleged conflict between science and religion, and it will also attempt to pinpoint how such conflicts may be prevented. To accomplish this, the definitions of science & religion will be clarified, the feud between evolutionary biology and religion will be discussed, and an argument will be made that creationism and fine-tuning arguments improperly overstep their magisterium. The fundamentals of science and religion must be reiterated before a proper argument can be made. First and foremost, science is the pursuit…

    • 1345 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    But it is by a collection of this assumption that makes the science community an invalid representation as to how shared knowledge can shape personal knowledge.an assumption, something someone just assumed. No one on this earth can attest to the origination of the earth, because they were not there to gather the evidence and facts. But it is by a collection of this assumption that makes the science community an invalid representation as to how shared knowledge can shape personal knowledge. Science groups have a hard time explaining life events and so therefore it would be unreliable. One’s personal knowledge would be…

    • 1377 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Punishment could serve as the cause for stopping future crimes. Despite this logical defense, the absence of accountability is still disturbing. On the other hand, libertarianism too has unsettling flaws. Libertarians make the extreme claim that science is limited to non-humans, because we have souls and they are a non-physical source of change in the world. I believe that the soul and body are not distinct entities since there is no sufficient evidence and no observations to prove or…

    • 1850 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    However, people can’t win arguments against God because they can’t disprove it. Thus, science and religion are incompatible, since they believe in different truths in the world; science more about the material world while religion focuses on the invisible…

    • 716 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays