In a correspondence world, science is considered the strongest of the truth tests. An empirical truth is thought of as a fact that has been confirmed by multiple scientific tests and experiments. However even though science is held in such high regards it is very often disputed.
One example of this is the recent dispute between evolution and creationism. There is scientific evidence that has confirmed Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection. Although it is true that with the technology we have today it is impossible to test the evolution of larger species such as man, but we have witnessed multiple accounts of evolution in microscopic organisms as well as many diseases. The quote says that science is more than and jumble of facts. This is true. To use the analogy given in the quote, if you want to build a house you will not only need the materials such as bricks, but you also must have plans or blueprints. In science the bricks are facts and the blueprints are the scientific method. This is a universal method that gives the steps for finding a scientific truth. It is true that facts supply the building materials for science but the scientific method supplies the plans for it to be built.
History has some problems when it goes up against science in questions of facts. The first problem is histories rankings on the correspondence truth ladder. As long as we can not go back in time history can never be tested. This excludes the empirical truth test from histories arsenal. Without this test it cannot match up with science. At best I could see a logic claim for a historical fact. If there is a large amount of documents talking of building railroad tracks in the 1800s and there are tracks it is only logical that the tracks were built in the 1800s. It is also possible to make the expertise argument. If someone spends there entire life reading about the civil war, the chances are that they know at least something that happened in the war. There is also a case for authority. Any high school student will tell you that they believe what their history teacher teaches them. All these truth tests can work for history however I fear that without the strongest of the five it just falls short of science. History also has another problem with its structure. If we were to use the analogy from before there are no blueprints. History can never be a “house” as Poincare would say. It is true that there can be historical facts, but without a method for
achieving these facts those facts aren’t building anything.
However history and science can sometimes work together. For example there are many forensic cases where this exact thing happens. After a crime takes place forensic scientists will use historical evidence to create the probable physical features of the criminal. Then forensic specialists can use any DNA found at the crime to run tests and get more specific data on the criminal. However sometimes in these cases the scientific evidence disputes the conclusions drawn from historical facts. In these cases the forensic science is always believed over the historical conclusions. One example is in the case of the serial killer in Baton Rouge, past serial killers tended to be white men in there twenties and thirties, however when the DNA sequencing was run it turns out that they were looking for a black man. When this information arose the forensic scientists were correct and the killer was apprehended.
History and science can both have facts so when head to head which fact is right? I would have to say that science is the victor. It is important to have a class system within these facts in the future when problems arise. If there was a universally believed system then there would be no disputes in the subjects of abortion, evolution, or any other of these questionable topics.
