[fasteddie31003]

I am deeply skeptical of any "research" that concludes something in the past. The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, and replication, but these aren't possible with past events, so we can't directly test or falsify historical claims. Instead, researchers infer conclusions based on indirect evidence like documents, artifacts, or statistical patterns—often without being able to isolate variables or rule out alternatives.

If something is not falsifiable, it is not science in my book. Research that is falsifiable uncovers deep truths of nature that will benefit humanity's progress, which this kind of research will not.

Sorry to be a downer. I haven't had my morning coffee yet.

[layer8]

Observations are inherently always about the past.

[fasteddie31003]

That’s true in a narrow sense—every observation records something that has already happened. But in science, observations can be tested, replicated, and used to predict future outcomes. The kind of "research" I'm skeptical of draws broad, causal conclusions about unique, unrepeatable past events where none of that is possible.

[layer8]

Usually these are predictions made by a model that has explanatory power for things that we can observe. The model might be wrong, or there might be a better model. That’s always the case in science. Observations that confirm a model also increase the credence for its predictions that we can’t directly observe. It means that given our best current understanding of X, it also implies Y. Yes, Y might be wrong, but then that implies that something is likely also wrong with our current understanding of X. The predictions (or retrodictions) aren’t black and white. They always have some associated level of credence, which depends on how well we think we understand the kind of system we are talking about.

[drob518]

It’s always a theory, but what choice do you have? You can’t rerun the experiment again under controlled conditions. Your only choice is to theorize or not. Sure, there is more possible error in such theories compared to other theories where you can rerun the experiment multiple times to test it, but that doesn’t mean that a theory that can’t be tested is wrong.

[AStonesThrow]

It’s actually seldom a Theory. In fact, I’d be surprised if scientists were eager to form “Theory on the Formation of Jupiter” [or Venus or the Moon] because those are already quite specific subjects that should be derived from generalized theories.

We’re thinking of hypotheses and proposals and extrapolations here. A few scientists analyzed and compared existing data, and they estimate things and interpolate and ... guess ... And the narrative develops as they give facility tours and answer questions for journalists, 8-year-olds, and 8-year-old journalists.

Theories are hypotheses which were tested and survived falsification attempted against them. You cannot adequately falsify “800 million years ago, and 12 parsecs away...” but you can enjoy your colleagues’ version of the story over drinks with a jazz band.

[iwontberude]

PC is from the future

[impendia]

If we're to take your claims at face value, can we make any conclusions about the past at all?

For example, suppose that I were to claim that the universe is exactly one hundred years old. George Washington, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, dinosaurs, etc. are all figments of our collective imagination.

If you deny the validity of research that makes conclusions about the past, on the grounds that such claims can't be tested or falsified -- then have you left yourself any means of making a counterargument?

[SJC_Hacker]

So I guess you’re skeptical about continental drift theory and universal common descent ?

[mmooss]

> I am deeply skeptical ...

Perhaps you mean, you don't understand or you wonder how it reconciles with the scientific method? It's an interesting question about theory.

To be 'deeply skeptical' is not meaningful, imho. All these people - including Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and so many more, including the entire scientific community - believe it. All these experiments replicate it. You are deeply skeptical about all of that and of all of them? What does it mean, even to you?

> we can't directly test or falsify historical claims. Instead, researchers infer conclusions based on indirect evidence like documents, artifacts, or statistical patterns—often without being able to isolate variables or rule out alternatives.

We can directly test the claims through many methods, for example that the stone tool was made 2.58 million years old, but we can't see 2.58 million years ago (except something that is 2.58 million light years away, of course). We can indirectly test claims, e.g., that tool use existed 2.58 million years ago, through many different methods.

You're right that it's not the same. What else can we do? Just quit and live in ignorance?

> If something is not falsifiable, it is not science in my book. Research that is falsifiable uncovers deep truths of nature that will benefit humanity's progress, which this kind of research will not.

You can call it what you want, but that doesn't change its value. Is this just a question of terminology?

By this proposed theory, we can't know anything that happened before now. We can't know what happened in ancient China - did the Han dynasty even exist? We can't know who won the Olympic marathon in 1928 without witnesses to tell us. We can't know what happened yesterday - human memory is certainly fallible, and otherwise you have only indirect evidence. That applies to every scientific paper, providing indirect evidence to us of what has happened, and mostly based on human memory. Did I write what you are reading? Where is your falsifiable direct observation?

We also can't know much of what is happening now. Most science data is based on indirect observation by devices and machines. Human sensory ability is limited and unreliable in many ways. What color is the light in the experiment? We measure that with a machine that gives us indirect information.

I think a key challenge to your theory is, how do we know anything at all?

[iwontberude]

This is how young earth type misunderstandings begin. Thanks for bringing us inside the mind.

[ricksunny]

parent commenter invokes Popperian epistemology. Your comment aligns Popper with flat-earth thinking. One of you is engaging in pseudoscience.