Replies

Thanks for your post, PatrickHenry! I’m going to quibble with your quibble. You said:

A-Girl, I must quibble with your choice of terminology too. The historical sciences -- including but not limited to astronomy, geology, anthropology, paleontology, climatology, archaeology, criminology, cosmology and evolution -- do not (in BB's words which you endorse) "present to us myth or legends under the color of science," nor do the professionals in such fields fail to consider "all the angles, all the available evidence, and to entertain in good faith potential alternative hypotheses," nor do they fail to keep "the problem open, rather than just shutting it down to all further inquiry."

What betty boop wrote and I endorsed is as follows(emphasis mine:):

So what it all boils down to, for me, is this: If the historical sciences are going to present to us myth or legends under the color of science, at least let them make sure that they have considered all the angles, all the available evidence, and to entertain in good faith potential alternative hypotheses. This approach keeps the problem open, rather than just shutting it down to all further inquiry because it has become a "closed" question.

A shingle which carries a term such as "astronomy, geology, anthropology, paleontology, climatology, archaeology, criminology, cosmology and evolution" is no guarantee that the work product will not be a "myth or legend".

Below are two examples, but there are many others, e.g. Stonehedge, Easter Island, location of Solomon’s Temple, David as a historical figure.

Comets and Disaster in the Bronze Age - British Archeology, Journal of the Council for British Archeology December 1997

At some time around 2300 BC, give or take a century or two, a large number of the major civilisations of the world collapsed, simultaneously it seems. The Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia, the Old Kingdom in Egypt, the Early Bronze Age civilisation in Israel, Anatolia and Greece, as well as the Indus Valley civilisation in India, the Hilmand civilisation in Afghanistan and the Hongshan Culture in China - the first urban civilisations in the world - all fell into ruin at more or less the same time. Why? …

The Sphinx

Mainstream Egyptologists reacted with total disbelief when it was proposed that the famous Sphinx was much older than the 4th Dynasty [2500 BC] … This tentative estimate [7000 to 5000 BC] is probably a minimum date; given that weathering rates may proceed non-linearly (the deeper the weathering is, the slower it may progress due to the fact that it is “protected’ by the overlying material), the possibility remains open that the initial carving of the Great Sphinx may be even earlier than 9,000 years ago…

I realize that you put historical sciences on par with experimental sciences. I don’t. I rank authorities by my confidence in the discipline as follows:

I. Mathematics, Geometry, Statistics, et al
II. Physics, Information Science, et al
III. Chemistry, Biology, Medicine, et al
IV. Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology, Climatology, Criminology, et al.
V. Anthropology, Paleontology, Archaeology, Evolution, History, et al
VI. Metaphysics, Philosophy, Psychology, Politics, et al

You find the sciences equivalent based on their use of, and the preponderance of, underlying data evidence. I find them highly differentiated by their epistemological zeal. For instance, I do not equate Physics with Anthropology, much less Geometry with Evolution.

You are certainly welcome to your views. IMHO, it is very helpful to know our differences to facilitate better understanding! Hugs!!!

I rank authorities by my confidence in the discipline as follows:
I. Mathematics, Geometry, Statistics, et al
II. Physics, Information Science, et al
III. Chemistry, Biology, Medicine, et al
IV. Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology, Climatology, Criminology, et al.
V. Anthropology, Paleontology, Archaeology, Evolution, History, et al
VI. Metaphysics, Philosophy, Psychology, Politics, et al
Nice list. Certainly your category I deserves to be ranked above the others. Math and geometry are deductive, and will always be ahead of any inductive systems in the confidence we place in their conclusions. Your last category properly deserves to be at the bottom, as those topics are riddled with subjectivity.

All the stuff in the middle, it seems to me, really depends on the quantity and quality of the evidence that we have to work with, and on the sophistication of our instruments. (I think evolution deserves to rank well ahead of archaeology, by the way.) Compared to physics, for example, archaeology seems primitive, but I suspect it's because in the field of archaeology we have so little information to go on that the resulting theories sometimes do seem more like myths than science. But it's not for lack of rationality, or application of the scientific method. The difference, in my always humble opinion, lies in the quality of the data, not in the "experimental vs. historical" disjunction.

Massive hugs.

I realize that you put historical sciences on par with experimental sciences. I don’t.

Me either, A-G. And for the same reason: "I find them highly differentiated by their epistemological zeal."

Something that concerns me very much is a seemingly growing tendency within the sciences -- more pronounced in the social and historical sciences than in the "hard" sciences, but sometimes present even in the latter -- for the creators of the various theories to so fall in love with their creations that they will defend them against any and all challenges "from outside." With a passion reminiscent of devout Muslims defending a mosque against the infidel. (If anybody doubts this assessment, check out any CREVO thread around here.)

I remember Marx. I remember his "forbidding of questioning." Marx had to forbid all questioning, in order for his system to survive. His system is perfectly internally consistent -- on its own terms. So, no other terms allowed! Especially not those that relate to the "real world."

I loved your ranking system!!! I mainly agree, though do feel a tad chagrined that you generally dumped philosophy on the lowest rung. :^) Yet the system is not static: math penetrates down through all the inferior ranks, and epistomology bubbles up from below, from philosophy.

Thanks so much for writing, Alamo-Girl. It's always such a pleasure to hear from you. Hugs girl!

I. Mathematics, Geometry, Statistics, et al II. Physics, Information Science, et al III. Chemistry, Biology, Medicine, et al IV. Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology, Climatology, Criminology, et al. V. Anthropology, Paleontology, Archaeology, Evolution, History, et al VI. Metaphysics, Philosophy, Psychology, Politics, et al

Your arrangement of the confidence in different disciplines is interesting. My one change might be the moving up of Metaphysics and Philosophy up above the historical 'sciences'. Philosophy relies a lot on logic and the concept of non-self contradiction which establishes some discipline on its practitioners. The historical sciences seem to put no constraints at all on the authors since there is such a great volume of 'evidence' from which to sift and select almost any conclusions the author wishes to make.