This is an interesting article on historical vs. experimental science in the latest issue of Geology. http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=0091-7613&vo lume=029&issue=11&page=0987 Geology: Vol. 29, No. 11, pp. 987?990. Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method Carol E. Cleland Department of Philosophy and Center for Astrobiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA Manuscript Received by the Society February 20, 2001 Revised Manuscript Received June 11, 2001 Manuscript Accepted June 28, 2001 ABSTRACT Many scientists believe that there is a uniform, interdisciplinary method for the practice of good science. The paradigmatic examples, however, are drawn from classical experimental science. Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled laboratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained. Keywords: methodology, induction, history, experimental investigations.