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.
Do you see how easily you fell into logical fallacy here? You went from 'cannot test what isn't there' to 'test, examine, or quantitate something of which there is no evidence'. Very smooth move there. Very smooth.
The assumed events known as the Big Bang, long-ages, abiogenesis and macroevolution are clearly untestable and may or may not exist. By slipping in the requirement for 'no evidence' you have moved from science to interpretation and philosophy. This allows you to claim that 'evidence' (no matter how flimsy) for these assumed events exists that allows you to 'quantitate' them.
In reality, you are not 'quantitating', you are extrapolating and that act assumes that extrapolation is not only possible but appropriate; something that you must assume and cannot know. This is not science, no matter how often you claim that it is. It is philosophy.
I use it to describe a real difference between science disciplines. And I am not alone. From the evolution side of the debate:
Empirical and Historical Science
The sciences are not all the same either. Although the process of science remains the same, the nature of the observations may differ. These observations can be either non-historical (time independent) or historical (time-dependent) (Simpson, 1963). Sciences like physics, chemistry and much of molecular biology are largely non-historical, although they may rely on historical observations in particular instances. They deal with observations that are not expected to change with time — they are time independent. An experiment done today should produce the same results as one done 10 years ago or 10 years in the future. For example, water should always flow downhill because the effect of gravity does not change with time, whether it be a billion years ago, yesterday, or today. We can expect that gravity will not change in another billion years. Sciences like astronomy, anthropology, much of biology, geology, paleontology, and evolutionary biology are largely historical, although each uses experiments commonly.
Historical sciences rely on observations or evidence (results) of phenomena that happened in the past. These results arose through a series of events, the history, and each event was contingent on previous ones. Historical scientists can only infer the causes from the results, since the results happened in the past...
Historical science has a greater margin of error most of the time than non-historical, experimental science because scientists cannot repeat each event and must view only the results of those events through a filter of time. That margin should not, however, be mistaken for a lack of knowledge. We understand the formation of the Grand Canyon in all aspects, but not in every detail. In evolutionary biology, so-called missing links are details, not evidence that destroys the theory. Just because you may not have any information about your great great grandmother does not invalidate her existence nor that she is a part of your history. Paleontology and evolutionary biology are largely historical sciences that reveal the broad patterns, and very commonly even the detailed patterns, of evolutionary history. Gaps do exist in that record, just as there are likely to be gaps in your own family's historical record, but that does not invalidate or make the science less substantive.
Likewise, I have no use for "just so" stories which constitute much of the hypotheses offered by the historical sciences, e.g. anthropology, archeology, Egyptology, evolution biology.
That we are able to observe adaptation of wildlife in the field or evolution of bacteria in the laboratory does not make "just so" stories any less the fabrications that they are.
In my view, the historical record is simply too spotty for historical sciences to be taken as seriously as the hard sciences, e.g. physics.
As Cleland put it, paraphrased, the inability to perform tests should be offset by proliferating alternative explanations and then searching for a smoking gun to discriminate between them.
Failure to do that makes the only explanation offered smack of religious dogma as well as a "just so" story.
Ever hear of the Drake equation?
Which has interesting implications for the oft-repeated Pecksniffian proclamation from evos that "evolution is NOT about abiogenesis, you stupid fundies; it's about observed changes to the allele over time in specified populations".
And, for the nonce, it'd be fun to do a "propagation of errors" analysis on the Drake equation to assign error bars to the final result.
Cheers!