Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method
|Abstract||Many scientists believe that there is a uniform, interdisciplinary method for the prac- tice of good science. The paradigmatic examples, however, are drawn from classical ex- perimental science. Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled labo- ratory 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 scien- tists 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 methodo- logically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
James Maxwell Little (1961). An Introduction to the Experimental Method. Minneapolis, Burgess Pub. Co..
Paul E. Griffiths & Karola Stotz (2008). Experimental Philosophy of Science. Philosophy Compass 3 (3):507–521.
Susan Lindee (2011). Experimental Wounds: Science and Violence in Mid-Century America. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (1):8-20.
Jacob Stegenga (2009). Philosophy of Experimental Biology. Erkenntnis 71 (3):431-436.
Marcel Weber (2005). Philosophy of Experimental Biology. Cambridge University Press.
Kurt Bayertz (1991). Forschungsprogramm Und Wissenschaftsentwicklung. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 22 (2):229 - 243.
C. E. Cleland (2011). Prediction and Explanation in Historical Natural Science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62 (3):551-582.
Carol E. Cleland (2002). Methodological and Epistemic Differences Between Historical Science and Experimental Science. Philosophy of Science 69 (3):447-451.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads36 ( #38,010 of 722,701 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #13,428 of 722,701 )
How can I increase my downloads?