Is History A Science?

There are varying opinions for various reasons:

http://blog.yupnet.org/2011/08/10/history-as-art-not-science/
Contends that: "A historian’s purpose, as John Lukacs explains in The Future of History, is to find out what “untruths” have been recorded and discover the truth."

http://www.importanceof.com/history/is-history-a-science-or-an-art-answered/359
Contends: "In the opinion of some scholars history is a science. As a science it aims at discovering facts of the past as they really were and then interpreting them correctly. It also makes use of various methods of inquiry like observation, classification, and formulation of the hypothesis and analysis of evidence before interpreting and reconstructing the past."

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S106279870000329X
Contends: "Is history a science or an art? There are several ways of looking at this well known and frequently debated question. One way would be to look at the categorization of disciplines as made by the Academia Europaea. This organization has given a great deal of thought to the matter, resulting for the moment in the rather practical solution of essentially distinguishing four broad categories: Humanities, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences and Life Sciences. It is noticeable that, apart from the Humanities, all other scholars use the term 'science' to describe their work. But not all of them will be considered as scientists proper because, in the English language, the word science (or sciences) in its simple form, without any adjective, refers exclusively to the natural sciences."

Hope this helps.

As an anthropologist, I would contend that history is a "Social Science" as is anthropology, because it is based on flexible and generally untestable hypotheses.


Impossible is illogical.
Lack of evidence is not proof.
 +  = 

No. Too many properties of an action or event are unrecorded. And not all journal entries are truly honest.

For example: 9/11/01. Many voices are unaccounted for. The primary subject was summarily executed. He never claimed responsibility soon after the attack. Several years later, after Afghanistan and Iraq had been 'invaded', did he then make the claim. Strangely enough, the President no longer cared about pursuing him. Was he being honest or was he tired of the question?

Another example would be sports. Plenty of empirical data generated. But the data is rendered moot by the evolution of the sport and the rules changed in search of safety or audience. Can a historian do justice for an athlete?









_______

Est modus in rebus sunt certi denique fines quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum Goldilocks

Thats like saying a certain theory in physics isn't science because it makes mistakes.

Life springs from death and from the graves of patriot men and women spring living nations

Good question.
And my answer is,... that's a good question.

I've got one for you:
How much wood
Could a Woodchuck chuck,
If a Woodchuck
Could chuck wood?



God did not create man in his own image; man created god in his own image.

How far would a woodchuck chuck wood if a woodchuck could chuck wood? 


Impossible is illogical.
Lack of evidence is not proof.
 +  = 

Close, but not quite; the answer is,...
As much wood
As a Woodchuck could,
If a Woodchuck
Could chuck wood.

Thank you Shirley Feeney, of "Laverne & Shirley".


God did not create man in his own image; man created god in his own image.

As someone that majored in history in college, it can be categorized as a social science just for the sake of convenience. Historians use both quantitative and qualitative data in their research.

Whatever you are, be a good one.