(June 16, 2023 at 8:57 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:1, why are you arguing with the Father of modern Philosophy of Science? Karl popper set narrow parameters on what can be considered 'science.'(June 15, 2023 at 4:19 pm)R-Farmer Wrote: History is not a falsifiable science. History is largely based on eye witness testimony and period documentation. As there isn't an experiment we can do to independently verify whether or not Columbus sailed in 1492. The evidence we have comes from eye witnesses and period documentation. So unless you are saying falsifiable science is now accepting eyewitness testimony as scientific proof, then history and science are two different intellectual disciplines with two different rule sets. Just like theology is an independent discipline who like history does not need to obey the rules of 'science' to be vetted/verified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
2, please Note the primary methodologies to vetting scientific theory verses historical facts.
I ask you to look up and read the first section of the wiki page concerning the scientific method. (I can't post links or quote the page because of the links imbedded on the page)
Do you notice how the Historical method and scientific method have different rules and standards of proof? Do you see how in the scientific method requires 7 different steps. Karl Popper said these 7 steps are necessary and must be observed and completed before a subject can be considered to be a scientific subject or field of study. Anything that falls outside of the rigors of the scientific method Can NOT be considered science.. One can not observe any point of history and one can not produce a reproducible experiment to prove or disprove history as again history is based on eye witness testimony or commentary of a given event. Or primary or secondary source material.