Carol E. Cleland tackles an important issue in her analysis of the alleged inferiority of historical science compared to experimental science. Yet, her method of analysis and the conclusions she draws deserve comment.

First, the asymmetry between past and future is intriguing, but what significance does it have in this context? Cleland claims this asymmetry not only explains, but actually demands, that historical science looks for confirmation while experimental science looks for refutation. Yet, whether an event is historical or the outcome of a controlled experiment, its effects appear afterward. Both historical events and the controlled experiments have a context...

You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.