Actually, that is not correct. Historians interpret history. They do not recount the actual events, but they group them, organize them, and attempt to give them meaning. This brings in all manner of bias and prejudice; and these change through time. Ever read an encyclopedia 100, or 150 years old? The facts are the same but the interpretation has certainly changed!
The key point is that history does not necessarily use the scientific method. It has its own methods.
The key point is that history does not necessarily use the scientific method. It has its own methods.
The point I was defending:
Depends on the kind of thing. Science is great for some things, but doesn't work well with others. It is just one of the ways honest rational people try to determine what is true. To limit oneself to science alone is just sad.
Apparantly we agree that historians have their own methods.
Repeatable scientific tests are great, when they can be applied...but in the pursuit of some facts, knolledge, and truth, they can not be.
Actually, that is not correct. Historians interpret history. They do not recount the actual events, but they group them, organize them, and attempt to give them meaning. This brings in all manner of bias and prejudice...
Um...Part of the study of history neccesarily is determining the facts as well as possible. Often this means looking for written documents or other artifacts, and often means carefully analysing and deciphering such. Thus gathering a body of knolledge in order to make, hoepfully, reasonable guesses. Occasionaly such guesses can be tested by a new find, but the availibility of such is not guaranteed by the rigour of a controlled repeatable experiment as in proper science.
...and these change through time. Ever read an encyclopedia 100, or 150 years old? The facts are the same but the interpretation has certainly changed.
And how are the facts which are the same determined? By the scientific method or by historical methods?