History and Science

[Robert Vermaat]

Historians, on the other hand, have a tendency to dismiss theories comprehensively unless heavily supported by, preferably written, primary evidence.

Frankly, I don't think you know what History as a science is.
And frankly, speaking as a historian, I'm offended at being excluded from science. History bloody well IS a science. :evil:

Historians seem to have a fundamental discomfort with theories and eschew logical extrapolation from limited data.

You are confusing History with Pseudo-history.
Historians have no problems with theories because they realise that, since nobody of us was actually there, all we produce can be but theory. So historians have no problems with theories at all, since there can be nothing but.

This seems to be true even when a theory is perfectly logical and consistent with whatever slight evidence exists. This is, of course, a subjective view, though I have written both scientific papers and historical (Napoleonic) articles.

Pseudo-history, as I said above. Every self-respecting historian should stay away from such arguments about theories that are not supported by any proof, but are solely supported by so-called 'logic' ("It's possible, so it's true").
This is getting you arguments like "King Arthur existed because he could have existed, because there are people talking about him 400 years later, so it's true."
Or:
"The life of Jesus Christ in the Bible is based on a biography of Julius Caesar because it could have."

Nothing to do with history whatsoever.