Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 457

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Methodological and Epistemic Differences between Historical Science and Experimental Science

Cleland, Carol E.·2002·Philosophy of Science
DOI 10.1086/342455
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Experimental research is commonly held up as the paradigm of “good” science. Although experiment plays many roles in science, its classical role is testing hypotheses in controlled laboratory settings. Historical science (which includes work in geology, biology, and astronomy, as well as paleontology and archaeology) is sometimes held to be inferior on the grounds that its hypothesis cannot be tested by controlled laboratory experiments. Using contemporary examples from diverse scientific disciplines, this paper explores differences in practice between historical and experimental research vis-à-vis the testing of hypotheses. It rejects the claim that historical research is epistemically inferior. For as I argue, scientists engage in two very different patterns of evidential reasoning and, although there is overlap, one pattern predominates in historical research and the other pattern predominates in classical experimental research. I show that these different patterns of reasoning are grounded in an objective and remarkably pervasive time asymmetry of nature.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/342455

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Popper, 1963, Philosophy of Science, 3
  2. Gee, 2000, In Search of Deep Time
  3. 10.1063/1.3037671 · doi:10.1063/1.3037671
  4. Kerr, 2001, Are Martian ‘Pearl Chains’ Signs of Life, Are Martian ‘Pearl Chains’ Signs of Life, 291, 1875
  5. 10.1038/177538a0 · doi:10.1038/177538a0
  6. 10.1177/004839317700700403 · doi:10.1177/004839317700700403
  7. Klein, 1992, Mars, 1221
  8. Price, 1996, Time’s Arrow and Archimedies’ Point
  9. 10.1007/978-94-011-5334-8 · doi:10.1007/978-94-011-5334-8
  10. Kitcher, 1993, The Advancement of Science
  11. Ward, 1990, Global Catastrophes in Earth History, 425

Cited by

See all 457

Metadata

Authors
Cleland, C. E.
Venue
Philosophy of Science
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2002-09
Volume
69
Issue
3
Pages
474-496
ISSN
  • 0031-8248 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-767X
DOI
10.1086/342455
OpenAlex
W1977803477
Cited by
457
References
34
FWCI
33.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 7062 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.