Also, I'd like to clear up some confusion over the terms I have been using which evidently have resulted in your claiming a "false dichotomy."
I've been comparing the discipline of historical sciences (e.g. anthropology, Egyptology, archeology and evolution biology) to hard sciences (e.g. physics and chemistry.)
Moreover, I'm focusing on the philosophical divide between them. To the historical sciences, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. To the hard sciences, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
The divide is so great, the historical sciences are often seen as inferior to the hard sciences. Physics, for instance, is often seen as far more rigorous and reliable than archeology.
Personally, I value physics far above any other science discipline and mathematics above physics.
That said, the opposite of "hard" science is "soft" science, e.g. psychology, social sciences. Such disciplines are so far removed from either historical or hard sciences, they are not even relevant in this discussion.
In most cases, "soft" sciences do not use a historical record for evidence, e.g. psychology. To whatever extent they do, they would be considered "historical" sciences, e.g. anthropology.
When examining methodology, the opposite of "historical" science is "experimental" science and chief among the "experimental" sciences are the "hard" sciences, e.g. physics and chemistry.
The article I linked for you earlier examines methodological and epistemic differences between historical sciences and experimental sciences.
Biology has a leg in both methodologies; many of its hypotheses are "historical" (e.g. evolution biology and astrobiology) but not all (e.g. molecular biology.)
But to whatever extent a hypothesis presupposes that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is a "just so" story - inferior to my eyes and the eyes of many others.
I've been comparing the discipline of historical sciences (e.g. anthropology, Egyptology, archeology and evolution biology) to hard sciences (e.g. physics and chemistry.)
The use of the term "historical sciences" is, as far as I can tell, meant to denigrate the pursuit of knowledge where a body of evidence was formed in the past. To my knowledge, real scientists do not use this terminology.
There *is* a demarcation between observation and controlled experimentation; there isn't a single discipline you mentioned above that doesn't use both methods. Both are hypothesis-driven; both rely on logical deduction.
Moreover, I'm focusing on the philosophical divide between them. To the historical sciences, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. To the hard sciences, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
There is no philosophical divide to speak of. Of necessity, the scientific method is driven by the nature of the problem being studied, but because one approach is better suited than another approach does not mean that the other approach is invalid. Furthermore, we are constrained by evidence: without evidence, there is nothing to test or observe. To try to infer the existence of something in the absence of all evidence regarding said existence is not science.
The divide is so great, the historical sciences are often seen as inferior to the hard sciences. Physics, for instance, is often seen as far more rigorous and reliable than archeology.
Again, what divide? And physics is seen by whom as being more rigorous and reliable than archeology? Many branches of physics are based purely on observation (any kind of astrophysics, for example), while archeology is based on examination of physical evidence--to me, archeology with its measurements and biochemical analyses seems a bit more reliable than inferences made about the nature of radiowave emitters located millions of lightyears away.
Personally, I value physics far above any other science discipline and mathematics above physics.
All sciences are fundamentally physics. Mathematics, to a large extent, was invented to conceptualize physical phenomena.
As an aside, just about every life process conforms to a logarithmic model. Evolution, our physical senses, bacterial growth, population growth, response to pharmaceuticals, etc., can all be explained by logarithmic functions. *I* find that pretty fascinating.
When examining methodology, the opposite of "historical" science is "experimental" science and chief among the "experimental" sciences are the "hard" sciences, e.g. physics and chemistry.
The article I linked for you earlier examines methodological and epistemic differences between historical sciences and experimental sciences.
The author of that article was not a scientist, and was (like Popper) attempting to explain the scientific method from an outsider's point of view. Her use of the term "historical" in conjunction with science is unfortunate and inaccurate. She came close to, but did not quite grasp, that the methodologies she should have been discussing are "observational" vs. "controlled experimental." That said, she did not say that "historical" (i.e. observational) is less reliable than controlled experimental. It most certainly has its place within the realm of scientific investigation.
Biology has a leg in both methodologies; many of its hypotheses are "historical" (e.g. evolution biology and astrobiology) but not all (e.g. molecular biology.)
To reiterate, most scientific disciplines have both observational and controlled experimental components. It is difficult to think of any scientific discipline that does not incorporate elements of both methodologies. I should point out, however, that "astrobiology" barely qualifies as a scientific discipline. At such time as we find evidence of extraterrestrial life, then astrobiology will become valid. Until then, so-called astrobiologists are merely taking their knowledge of life-supporting conditions on earth and extrapolating it to other planets. I would say that with n=1 of known life-supporting planets, we have no hypothetical basis on which to extrapolate whether life exists on other planets, because we have no idea what other forms life might take, or the chemistries it might use.
I will also add, that while you try to relegate evolution biology to having no more basis than examination of fossils (that literal creationists either deny exist, or insist are actually only a few thousand years old despite the scientific measurements indicating otherwise), when I go into the lab and do certain types of experiments, I have to control for evolutionary processes just as much as for any other factor. I grow human cells. They evolve. I have a few weeks in which to conduct experimental manipulations before they evolve to the point where I can no longer be sure that I am looking at results from the same experiment that I started. After about 20 generations, or 6-10 weeks, I throw the cells away and start with a new batch. That is not a "historical" observation, it is an experimental reality.
But to whatever extent a hypothesis presupposes that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is a "just so" story - inferior to my eyes and the eyes of many others.
Again, scientists cannot test what isn't there. If you have a way to test, examine, or quantitate something of which there is no evidence, please share it.