This blog post examines why biology and geology must explain events and causality through historical questions. We will focus on the differences from physics.
Other scientific fields, including biology, face a problem not found in physics. Since there is no appropriate word to express this problem, we will temporarily call it a ‘historical question’. If we were to understand everything about biology, the next question that would arise is, “Why do these organisms exist on Earth?” The theory that provides a partial answer to this question is evolution. Theory of evolution is a crucial field within biology, yet it remains an incomplete theory requiring further refinement.
In geology, we seek to understand not only the formation of mountains but also the origin of Earth itself, and ultimately, the genesis of the galaxy. These questions ultimately lead to the inquiry: “What substances compose this world?” Questions like “How do stars evolve?” and “What were the initial conditions when stars first formed?” also belong to the ‘historical questions’ that astronomy must address. We have uncovered a considerable amount of facts about the elements that make up stars and ourselves, and our understanding of the origin of the universe, though still very limited, is gradually expanding.
However, at the present time, physics does not dwell significantly on ‘historical questions’. The question “Why do these physical laws 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 its current form?” or “What did the law that existed before look like?” Of course, it is possible that physical laws change over time. If this were proven true, the ‘historical questions’ of physics would evolve into questions about the history of the universe. From that point onward, physicists would engage in dialogue with astronomers, geologists, biologists, and others on the same subject matter.
When biologists attempt to answer questions about specific events, such as “Why are there no hummingbirds on the Old Continent?” or “Where did the human species originate?”, they cannot rely on universal laws. Biologists must study all facts related to the specific problem and infer various outcomes from reconstructed factors. In this process, biologists construct scenarios explaining the observed facts for these particular cases. In other words, they construct ‘historical narratives’.
This approach is fundamentally different from causal-law explanations. Consequently, classical philosophers of science grounded in logic, mathematics, or physics found this approach difficult to accept. However, recent scholars have clearly demonstrated that the classical perspective is narrow-minded, proving that the ‘historical narrative’ approach is not only valid but also the only scientifically and philosophically sound method for explaining specific events.
Of course, one cannot assert that the ‘historical narrative’ is ‘truth’. The more complex the system encompassed by science, the greater the number of interactions occurring within that system. These interactions often make it difficult to establish causality through observation alone. Only inference is possible. Such inference is inherently susceptible to the background and experience of the interpreting scholar, frequently leading to disputes over the ‘best’ explanation. Furthermore, every ‘historical narrative’ is falsifiable and can be subjected to testing at any time.
