(August 23, 2016 at 8:27 am)Rhythm Wrote:(August 23, 2016 at 8:21 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I would agree, that the conclusion needs to be falsifiable. I think that repeatability is debatable, does the study in question only become science once it is repeated? What about historical sciences.... what exactly is it you are saying needs to be repeatable?The means by which their conclusion was reached..... historians and archeologists aren;t immune to it or exempted from that condition.
I would agree, that you should get the same results (within reason). Same conclusions may be a bit trickier on an inference, and I don't think that someone coming to a different conclusion base on the results, means that it is not science.
Quote: You're obviously angling for some ludicrous "repeat of the moment in history" ...and maybe that's why you don't understand the criticism. If I do what you do, and use the same sources you do, we should arrive at the same conclusion, the same results. Further, that implications of your proposition which you -did not- explore would also yield confirming data.
Just clarifying what is being said.
Quote:If, for example..you are a "historian" that contends that there was a mass migration of hebrews through the desert, and that you have dug up archeological evidence of it, I should be able to go a digging as well...and find it.
I don't think that they re-bury them when they are done, for another to find.
