Sorry about the multiple threads made close together, but I thought this different enough from my other question to warrant its own thread.
I keep hearing about "operation science" versus "historic science". I hear about how we can't know what happened in the past.
So, that leads me to wonder.
Where (or in this case, it might be appropriate to say 'when') does it break down? Because break down it (supposedly) does.
Does it break down in the <1 second it takes for our brain to recieve and analyze signals into how we percieve them?
Does it break down in the days or weeks between an experiment and the analysis of what the data gathered meant?
Does it break down when dealing with recent history, say in the 20th century?
Or the one before that? Can we know what went on in the 19th? I think we can, after all we have writings from that period. But what about things that weren't written about explicity?
What about the 18th century? The American Revolution, the French Revolution, the sacking of Delhi by Nadir Shah?
So we have some times recently when we can definitely tell what went on.
What about the way past?
Apparently, we can't know about dinosaurs living 65 million years ago, the formation of the solar system, supernovae (pulling a random big number of out nowhere) 180 million light years away, the Big Bang, these are all (supposedly) false and unknowable, unprovable, all lies, etc.
So where does it break down?
And why does it break down at that point?
Does it only function when we can find human records of any sort? What happens when we find ones that violate the 600-year old model? Is it only when human records of a certain quality are found? Why that quality, and what happens if we find said quality in something that violates the 6000 year model?
I'm not asking for an exact date, but I would like a least a specific century. Why that century? What criteria does that century meet that others don't? Why should that century specifically be when the transition fails? How is that scientific?
If there is going to be a distinction, it should be clear cut.
Metherion
I keep hearing about "operation science" versus "historic science". I hear about how we can't know what happened in the past.
So, that leads me to wonder.
Where (or in this case, it might be appropriate to say 'when') does it break down? Because break down it (supposedly) does.
Does it break down in the <1 second it takes for our brain to recieve and analyze signals into how we percieve them?
Does it break down in the days or weeks between an experiment and the analysis of what the data gathered meant?
Does it break down when dealing with recent history, say in the 20th century?
Or the one before that? Can we know what went on in the 19th? I think we can, after all we have writings from that period. But what about things that weren't written about explicity?
What about the 18th century? The American Revolution, the French Revolution, the sacking of Delhi by Nadir Shah?
So we have some times recently when we can definitely tell what went on.
What about the way past?
Apparently, we can't know about dinosaurs living 65 million years ago, the formation of the solar system, supernovae (pulling a random big number of out nowhere) 180 million light years away, the Big Bang, these are all (supposedly) false and unknowable, unprovable, all lies, etc.
So where does it break down?
And why does it break down at that point?
Does it only function when we can find human records of any sort? What happens when we find ones that violate the 600-year old model? Is it only when human records of a certain quality are found? Why that quality, and what happens if we find said quality in something that violates the 6000 year model?
I'm not asking for an exact date, but I would like a least a specific century. Why that century? What criteria does that century meet that others don't? Why should that century specifically be when the transition fails? How is that scientific?
If there is going to be a distinction, it should be clear cut.
Metherion
