Simulation Theory according to Dilbert

[GrandizerII]

...if some scientific theory says that one should expect to see certain fossils in these layers here rather than in the layers over there, then the fossil record would constitute scientific evidence if these certain fossils do happen to be found in these layers and not in other layers.

Indeed. It's a very fine line though, isn't it? An analogous historical theory would say that a particular type of potshard would only be found at certain layers of a dig site or that artifacts from a specific cultural group won't be found in some area before a certain date. You can predict that if one culture reports seeing major cosmic events, others will too. Now is that science or is it history? How does one draw the line? Now suppose the cosmic event happened in 300 B.C. but only two scribes told of it - one in Greece another in India. And the Greek report is recorded by the disciple of the person who actually observed it. Do we just say, well, those are just anecdotes?

I should've said testimonies, not testimonials. Anyway ...

To answer the first question (science or history regarding reports of cosmic events), I would say it's reasoning based on what is known or accepted as true (which is what scholars in history and similar fields tend to do). Would this be considered scientific? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it's not a big deal for me either way. As long as what we're looking at adequately supports/falsifies the hypothesis being proposed, then this is at least borderline science.

To answer the second question, I would call those anecdotes because they're accounts written by human beings (with imperfections and biases just like any of us) of what they believe happened, even if their works were considered scholarly. At best, I might consider them very weak (tentative) evidence that some major cosmic event happened. You also have to take into account that only two scholars (albeit in separate countries) reported this, so we have to be skeptical until we have more conclusive and corroborating evidence that the major cosmic event did happen.

EDIT: I guess the amount of details in each account and the consistency found between the accounts might make the case stronger that some cosmic event did happen, but the problem is that it may also be that one of them copied from the other somehow, particularly if there is evidence suggesting the plausibility that people commuted between the two countries. And then you have to consider the agendas of the authors as well. Which makes things really complicated and hinders us from getting anywhere conclusive. And that's why I'm no historian.