English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Science can only prove things such as how grass grows, why does it hurt to stare at the sun etc...

Yet, at this moment I cannot see how it can prove things such as "what did I do yesterday?" I guess it could be proven by DNA and what not and a hypothesis would be made. I think ;however, I would trust the historical evidence more, such as a movie ticket stub, what my friend said I did etc...

So my question is "How can one possibly prove anything that cannot be reduplicated, such as history scientifically? Must man begin to rely on historical proof instead of scientific in such matters?"

2007-06-15 13:30:38 · 13 answers · asked by BucketOKnowledge 3 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

13 answers

The Historical/Legal method of proof used in History is not, obviously, the same used in science. Where science buffs make their mistake is by assuming (and badly so) that some how the scientific method can be used to explain EVERYTHING, and it so evidently and clearly cannot. The standards of proof used in history are far more broad than those used in any science, because the sheer volume of past events and the amount of interprtation required to authenticate ancient texts and establish their authenticity can take many years and reference to other closely related fields of study to put together a coherent unity of translation and acceptibility by scholars in the field.

2007-06-15 13:39:07 · answer #1 · answered by RIFF 5 · 0 3

There is a science called archaeology. It studies past human cultures via the discovery of historical artefacts in-situ such that they can lead to a richer historical discovery by attaining a set of artefacts that can be interpreted as a collective to make more complete interpretation of historical times and events. In other words, historical proof is a science!

Science is also used to construct more recent events as well. It is called forensics. A forensic scientist will look at trace elements on a persons clothes in their hair or under their nails. Once they narrow down the locations that the person in question may have been they might do a search for more convincing data... like dna as you mentioned, all this being scientific. The "ticket stub" for instance, does not prove that that person went to the movies. Perhaps it was downloaded off the internet, and put in their pocket but was never used. Having it on their person is NOT proof that they went to the movies! What people say can be tainted by all kinds of biases or lies? If enough people say the same thing then you build a body of evidence that becomes more and more credible through their coroboration. When an archaeologist wants to age a new volcanic tuft, or carbon remanant it is divided and sent for many different tests... coroboration of evidence is an important aspect of science.

All said, a lot of science is about discovering historical facts while sometimes the "historical proof", as you call it, is really just the treasure map that scientists use to start their scientific investigation.

2007-06-15 13:58:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Science doesn't try to "prove" anything. "Proof" works in areas like mathematics. I can prove with 100% certainty that there is no highest prime number, without having to check every number. But I can only do this because mathematics is an objective system of well-defined elements and axioms. The real world isn't so easy to label.

Science attempts to find the best explanation for what we see in the world, using the scientific method. A scientist, police detective, and historian are all trying to find the best answer for a situation, but they use slightly different "toolboxes". At some point though, the evidence is overwhelming enough that to believe otherwise is ridiculous.

Using your movie ticket stub example, the stub does not "prove" where you were yesterday. You may have found it on the street. But if I find that the movie usher recognizes a photo of you, and that a friend who says he went to the movies with you who has an identical stub, and other people can attest to seeing your car, telling of your plans, etc., then that would be all the more convincing. Of course there's a chance that the usher and everybody else are liars who are in together on a pre-planned conspiracy with you to convince me you went to the movies when you didn't, but again at that point it gets ridiculous, and I just accept the idea that you went to the movies.

How much evidence should we demand? It depends on the situation. If you told me you went to the movies and showed me a ticket stub, I'd probably take your word for it. However, if you were in a court room on trial for murder and had to prove your whereabouts during the time of the crime, the court might want to see more than a ticket stub.

2007-06-15 13:34:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

If by "historical proof" you mean hearsay about the past by self-interested people, then no, it's not very worthwhile. You can capture one-time events if you have accurate recording devices, so you will have it to study even if it only happened once. Writing is more difficult, depends heavily on powers of description. But religions were formed in the pre-literate period and witch-doctors are glad of it because if the origins of a religion had been well-documented, it wouldn't have gotten off the ground.

Things leave clues. In the fiction books, Sherlock Holmes could identify the author of a horrible murder which he didn't witness personally, and likewise scientists can tell that the Atlantic Ocean resulted from a split between tectonic plates even though they didn't live at the time it happened. There is no substitute, no "partner" that stands alongside the Scientific Method, or the rules of evidence in courtrooms, etc. "Nothing unreal exists," said Spock, quoting an ancient Vulcan sage. There is nothing beyond the real, material world. You can scream about things "beyond the senses" but that begs the question about why YOU claim to sense such things when scientists much smarter than you have had the monopoly on discovering and characterizing every single invisible thing from planets past Saturn to X-rays to electrons, and religious people have given us NO new knowledge, only speculation and arm-twisting to get people to believe.

2007-06-15 14:02:18 · answer #4 · answered by PIERRE S 4 · 0 1

Some issues are purely historical, yes.

Evolution is not one of them.

Other issues can be philosophical or whatever. Once you break down the issue into just problem solving, then it doesn't matter what field it falls under or whether it's interdisciplinary. You're just using logic.



By analogy, think of biology as like a box puzzle, but with no picture on the box to help you out. Biologists piece the jagged pieces together, and once they start to fit, we are faced with three explanations for why:

1. It's a coincidence that the pieces fit that way.

2. An "intelligent designer" designed the pieces to fit together.

3. There was no designer. Instead, the pieces were cut from the larger rectangle they used to form.

The third option is analogous to evolution. The second option implies a deceptive designer. Because the pieces look like they were once a rectangle that got cut apart, a designed making them look that way would be fooling people into thinking there was once a rectangle.

In the same way, a creationist god would still be fooling people into thinking evolution happened *because that's what we see when we observe honestly*.

We can reach this conclusion without using historical reasoning.

2007-06-15 13:34:17 · answer #5 · answered by Minh 6 · 2 0

science: how things work

religion: why things work

history: how things happen


Science can't prove everything, religion can't prove everything and history can't prove anything... but together they can explain everything YAY

corny much?
At the end of the day its not whether it exists or not, its just whether you are willing to believe in it or not. There will never be a perfect answer.

I take Jesus
There is proof that he existed on Roman records
There are proof that he had followers,
there is proof that he was killed after he destroyed a market place
there is proof of his words as he died
there is proof that he disappeared from the tomb
there is proof that his followers were very happy over the next few days and week
and testimony thousands of followers swore that they saw him afterwards


And the Romans prove it, through their records, so it did happen, but there are other interpretations why it could have happened.

There are many other things you can't prove with science... how about love. What is solid beyond belief evidence for that someone loves another.?

2007-06-15 13:46:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

In historical matters we usually rely on history. There are places where science and history merge such as analyzing what diseases, weather trends, fires etc happened by examining artifacts scientifically. The fields are not mutually exclusive.

2007-06-15 13:36:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Historical evidence like a movie stub is... wow, physical evidence. I can look for your DNA on it. Going back to science to prove you were there.
Also for history there are things called records. The more records you have from different sources and the more you can think whatever they recorded happened. But you have to be careful, to the victor goes the right to write the records. And from those records you can dig and look for physical proofs...

2007-06-15 13:35:53 · answer #8 · answered by didi 5 · 0 0

When seeking to "prove" things that happened in the past you have to use the court room method where the burden of evidence leads to a reasonable conclusion of the truth or error in the case put forth. Here's a link to the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School Site where Simon Greenleaf's investigation into the truth or lack thereof of the resurrection accounts of Jesus Christ is presented that will demonstrate my point.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)
Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.

2007-06-15 13:38:27 · answer #9 · answered by Martin S 7 · 0 2

The thing is, it does. But the historical proof to which you refer I think is the bible, and that is most definitely not historical proof. You only believe it is like you believe science is wrong. Everything about your current perception of reality is taken on faith. Faith that the bible is true. Faith that your parents aren't lying to you. Faith that there is a god. Science takes nothing on faith.

2007-06-15 13:37:10 · answer #10 · answered by Desiree 4 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers