Chumly wrote:real life wrote:You can't possibly scientifically prove many of the things I did today.
In what sense could I not scientifically prove many of the things you did today if I was properly prepared in advance? Do you perceive it a fault of science that it must be properly prepared?
DS seems to indicate that the scientific method was his standard for establishing truth ( 'What else have you got?' )
My point is that many of the things we wish to establish are in the past and, having not been anticipated, observers were not in place to record the event.
Our courts deal with such issues on a daily basis and must decide what is reliable and true ( at least beyond a reasonable doubt) without using a scientific method. They use a different method and hence a different standard of proof.
Some issues, such as evolution, that science wishes to address also happened in the past, and having not been anticipated nor observed they therefore fall short of qualifying for a strictly scientific method when trying to determine what is reliable and true.
These events -- the origin of life, the appearance of human life, etc --- were not observed and are not repeatable. Scientists wishing to study these things rely on largely circumstantial evidence, which is far different from direct evidence.
Thus the evidence that is available is open to a variety of interpretations, just as circumstantial evidence in a court of law would be. In fact the historical/legal method is entirely appropriate to be used in studying situations such as this.
In a strict sense, you cannot prove that George Washington existed or that the Roman Empire fell using a scientific method alone. Historical methods are the primary tools used -- sifting through the testimony of witnesses to the events and so forth-- since these historical happenings will not be repeated.
