I struggle to see why we should put any confidence in history since we can’t scientifically prove it actually happened.
And when you say ‘scientifically prove’… can you tell me more about what you mean?
Well, the scientific method involves repeating experiments… proving hypothesis. In history, the whole scientific method doesn’t even work because we can’t repeat a past event excactly.
Ah, I see. And we can’t have a control group either.
Exactly. And so we’re not able to gain certainty in our knowledge through repeated testing.
Are there any other areas of your life or knowledge that are like that?
Hmm… not sure what you mean.
Well, areas where you put confidence in knowledge you have even though it’s not perfect or repeatable.
Sorry, still not following.
Hmm… how about relationships? Sometimes (perhaps often?) they involve risk and uncertainty and we cannot create a repeatable, controlled, scientific experiment to eliminate uncertainty and risk.
Ah… so that’s why relationships suck! smile
smile Yeah! So painful at times!
But I think I see what you mean… they are a bit like the study of history. We can’t repeat things exactly, but we can still draw conclusions based on non-repeatable observations.
Would you be willing to consider whether having any confidence in history is reasonable even though history is not repeatable?