History and Science

[Robert Vermaat]

As several people have already said, I think we need to be more careful here with the word "Science". I realize that in other languages (like Dutch for instance ), it is often used to cover a wide number of studies, including History and many other things. This is not at all the case in English. 99.9% of the native English speakers are going to understand you to me something like physics, chemistry, or astronomy if you use that word-- fields of study that are almost entirely empirical.

I second that.
How do you judge astronomy to be emperical? Isn't physics about theories mostly, too?

The problem with history being a science is that while it CAN be empirical, it is by no means a requirement in order for it to be valid. You can't really say the same thing about classic sciences. History can't be totally scientific because it's stuck with the human variable. It's just not possible to be empirical when it comes to people, because the human mind and human actions cannot be quantified or described by a set of rules, nor can they be predicted in any way that always hold true. Given the fact that the doings and goings-on of people is pretty integral to history as a subject, I don't think you can really call it a science.

Same with Sociology, Psychology, Medicine, anything that has to do with people. Are those not Science either?

Like I keep saying, too many people here misunderstand what History entails, and concetrate far too much on the 'hypotheses about the past' part. Yes, historians sometimes write articles and books about the past. But that, I'll keep repeating ad nauseam, is not what History is about. It's the methodology that counts - without that, it's not History but just personal opinion. See below.

I am also not quite sure why so many people feel like history is being insulted by saying it's not a science. So what? Why is that bad? Not every useful human endeavor has to be scientific, nor is it somehow made less valid or useful because it can't use that word.

No, but what is the consequence for me personally? That I'm not a scientist? That my years at university were an utter waste of time because I could have taken a course in basket weaving instead? History has to do with people - so? Does that mean that historians work unscientifically and can be looked down upon condescendically by 'real' scientists who shake their head at us in a pitying manner?

Yeah, I'm overdoing it, I know. But I think all of this is coming from a pretty elitist way to interpret the word 'science'.

One of the reasons I'm very touchy about this is the confrontation with far too many people who think they can do a 'Dan Brown' and write a history book themselves. They disregard all source criticism and disregard all methodology even more. Like I said, then you get nutters who claim Julius Caesar stood model for Jesus Christ. This claim of history being not a science does not help.