- Dec 20, 2003
- 13,629
- 2,683
- Country
- Germany
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
As a Christian I believe there are 3 main methods of working out truth. Each one of These methods are different but effective in their own way.
1) Scientific - can demonstrate facts with repeatable experiments or testable mathematics. Collects Facts in theories which are valued for their explanatory power, ablity to make accurate predictions, and practical application and workablity.
2) Historical - works with witnesses and sources to establish the authentic record of a past Happening. Evaluates which sources are credible and which not. Brings together in a coherent account.
3) Theological - works with revealed knowledge. There are things that are very clear in scripture and things which require Interpretation. The Historical and Scientific methods can confirm circumstantial Details of scriptural accounts but offer Little by way of unseen spiritual dimensions and also unrepeated unanalogous rare miracles described.
So in a recent discussion with scientists I was asked if Napoleons defeat at Waterloo was something that was a scientific fact. After some tooing and froing I eventually decided that no it was not a scientific fact as there was no Experiment that could be done to demonstrate it happened, that was not irretrievably compromised by the possibility of the contamination of the Audit trail. But clearly this Event is an historical fact. There are an overwhelnming number of witness testimonies, official records, Museum artifacts, the existence of Strattford Saye as an Award for the Victor Wellington. The sources are overwhelming in fact and the authenticity of the story is clear.
So my questions are These:
1) Do you agree with my definition of the historical method for finding out truth. Basically in Terms of an evaulation of witnesses and sources. How would you define an historical fact, a workable theory and a speculative theory
2) Why is the scientific method often quoted when the historical method actually works better e.g. in the case of most court cases for example , or the Analysis of past Events
3) If science cannot prove that the battle of Waterloo was won by Wellington just 200 years ago why do People so readily accept its Claims about Events billions of years ago like the Big Bang, Chemical Evolution (Abiogenesis) and Biological Evolution. Why aren't historians just as important in this discussion as scientists when there are no real repeatable experiments that can be performed in defence of These theories.
1) Scientific - can demonstrate facts with repeatable experiments or testable mathematics. Collects Facts in theories which are valued for their explanatory power, ablity to make accurate predictions, and practical application and workablity.
2) Historical - works with witnesses and sources to establish the authentic record of a past Happening. Evaluates which sources are credible and which not. Brings together in a coherent account.
3) Theological - works with revealed knowledge. There are things that are very clear in scripture and things which require Interpretation. The Historical and Scientific methods can confirm circumstantial Details of scriptural accounts but offer Little by way of unseen spiritual dimensions and also unrepeated unanalogous rare miracles described.
So in a recent discussion with scientists I was asked if Napoleons defeat at Waterloo was something that was a scientific fact. After some tooing and froing I eventually decided that no it was not a scientific fact as there was no Experiment that could be done to demonstrate it happened, that was not irretrievably compromised by the possibility of the contamination of the Audit trail. But clearly this Event is an historical fact. There are an overwhelnming number of witness testimonies, official records, Museum artifacts, the existence of Strattford Saye as an Award for the Victor Wellington. The sources are overwhelming in fact and the authenticity of the story is clear.
So my questions are These:
1) Do you agree with my definition of the historical method for finding out truth. Basically in Terms of an evaulation of witnesses and sources. How would you define an historical fact, a workable theory and a speculative theory
2) Why is the scientific method often quoted when the historical method actually works better e.g. in the case of most court cases for example , or the Analysis of past Events
3) If science cannot prove that the battle of Waterloo was won by Wellington just 200 years ago why do People so readily accept its Claims about Events billions of years ago like the Big Bang, Chemical Evolution (Abiogenesis) and Biological Evolution. Why aren't historians just as important in this discussion as scientists when there are no real repeatable experiments that can be performed in defence of These theories.