In this blog post, we will examine why biology and geology must explain events and causality through historical questions. We will focus our discussion on the differences from physics.
Biology and other scientific fields face a problem not found in physics. Since there is no word to adequately describe this problem, I will temporarily refer to it as a “historical question.” If we were to fully understand everything in biology, the next question that would arise would be, “Why do these organisms exist on Earth?” The theory that provides a partial answer to this question is the theory of evolution. Although the theory of evolution is a very important field in biology, it remains an incomplete theory that still requires refinement.
In geology, too, we seek to understand not only the formation of mountains but also the formation of the Earth itself, and even the origin of the galaxy. These questions ultimately lead to the question, “What substances make up this world?” Questions such as “How do stars evolve?” and “What were the initial conditions when stars first formed?” also fall under the category of “historical questions” that astronomy must address. A great deal has been discovered about the elements that make up stars and ourselves, and although it is only a small part, our understanding of the origin of the universe is gradually expanding.
However, at this point in time, physics does not give much thought to “historical questions.” The question “Why does this physical law exist?” is not raised in physics. When a physicist discovers a physical law, they do not agonize over questions like “What process led this law to take its current form?” or “What did the laws that existed before look like?” Of course, it is possible that physical laws change over time. If this turns out to be true, the “historical questions” of physics will evolve into questions about the history of the universe, and from that point on, physicists will engage in dialogue with astronomers, geologists, and biologists on the same topics.
When a biologist attempts to answer questions about specific events, such as “Why are there no hummingbirds on the Old World continents?” or “Where did the human species originate?”, they cannot rely on universal laws. Biologists must study all the facts related to a specific problem and infer various outcomes from the reconstructed factors. In this process, biologists construct scenarios that explain the observed facts of these specific cases. In other words, they construct a “historical narrative.”
This approach is fundamentally different from causal, law-based explanations. Consequently, classical philosophers of science grounded in logic, mathematics, or physics found it difficult to accept this approach. However, recent scholars have clearly demonstrated that the classical perspective is narrow-minded and have proven that the “historical narrative” approach is not only valid but also the only scientifically and philosophically valid method for explaining specific events.
Of course, one cannot assert that a “historical narrative” is “true.” The more complex the system encompassed by science, the greater the number of interactions occurring within it. In many cases, these interactions make it difficult to establish causal relationships through observation alone. Only inference is possible. Since such inferences are inherently prone to relying on the scholar’s background and experience, disputes often arise over which explanation is “the best.” Furthermore, every “historical narrative” is falsifiable and can be subject to re-examination at any time.
