One does not deny scientific evidence merely by knowing, as a matter of classification, definition and methodology, that history is not a science.
***That is different than saying
“There is no science behind history for one to disdain”
One is irrational. The other is a little bit better thought out, but quite frankly, is a side issue to this discussion. So by engaging on a side issue, you’re doing one of the 4D’s.
History can however be supported as being more accurately recorded by actual science.
***Now you’re just full-scale backtracking.
You are correct. My sentence ““There is no science behind history for one to disdain” is imprecise. History is not a science is more clear.