History and Science

[caiusbeerquitius]

Modern science moves on two legs, experiment and theory.

Well Science is something else.

I agree, if you change "science" to "natural science".

See, here we differ simply between "Geisteswissenschaften" and "Naturwissenschaften" and "Rechtswissenschaften" and "Wirtschaftswissenschaften". History and most of it´s derivates are among the "Geisteswissenschaften". So I am used to simply accept that there are different approaches to "science", and that not the "Naturwissenschaften" can claim to be the only science existing. Look at "economical sciences". Experiments? No way. Not above the level of "peanuts". Only empiric valuation. So, as I said earlier, it rather seems to be a semantic problem. When I, with the background just explained, read that history is not a science, it is basically seen as an insult. Seeing how the semantic field for the term "science" changed in English, I can understand it somehow. But, regarding the origin of the term, and it´s original meaning, I think it is sad to lead it to such´a narrow-minded and narrow definition.
But then, Dexter´s Laboratory, that´s the picture. Science.
Again, it is so sad, that so few people are familiar with von Ranke.