Science and history are not usually considered related to each other. Despite their differences, both share some similarities. They use very strict approaches when looking for the "truth". However, the problem with history is that it is very controversial due to the fact that the past cannot be directly sensed, tested or even proved. In science's case, you observe phenomena in the present.
Science uses the scientific method to explore the "truth". This is a systematic process that involves constant observation, hypothesis making and experimentation. In a similar manner, history also follows the same pattern. A historian has to observe the evidence presented and form a hypothesis about how it fits in history. However, the problem with this is that the hypothesis cannot be tested, since it is a reconstruction of events. Therefore, a controversy will arise because the interpretation of the evidence might contain a bias of the historian, which will be hard to prove. Thus, there will be a stalemate as to the actual truth of the hypothesis. This shows how historical facts lack certainty compared to scientific facts.
On the other hand, science also contains biases in its conclusions. Some researchers ignore the results that go against their hypothesis, or they may not equally administer the methods to each of the participants. It is very important for science to do everything according to its strict procedures if it wishes to unveil the "truth." Moreover, a scientist doing the same study as another scientist may challenge his/her results. Let us compare both theories with an example. After careful analysis of pieces of evidence that he collected for years, a historian concludes that Japan's actions against the US were justified. However, since the historian cannot go back in time, this view is open-ended and challenged by several historians in the US. Similarly, a scientist researching the effects of music on a person's mood may conclude that it affects people significantly, while another scientist may disagree. On the other hand, there are situational contexts that determine the validity of data. These examples basically show the perceptual differences found in history and science that affect the understanding of the "truth".
Despite the perceptual differences in science and history, both are also interrelated. History depends on science to reveal information about the past. For example, scientists and historians to determine the age of something frequently use the carbon-dating method. Thus, this scientific method opens the door for historians to better fit their reconstructions in context. To reciprocate, science also depends on history. An example would be in medical science when reviewing patients' histories. This tells a doctor what procedure to carry out for the patient.
When it comes to language, there is a very big distinction between both areas of knowledge. Science is more complicated to understand because it uses jargon specific to its fields. For example, biology will have completely different words than physics. This complicates matters because it affects the understanding of the world as a whole for an average person. However, in history the language is much more simple. There are no specific words that belong to history and it is easy to understand. There is, however, one point that stands out. Historiography is at risk of being exaggerated by emotions. Referring back to the perception, a historian could get carried away by his/her emotions and write exaggerated things that never happened. For example, a Pakistani historian will probably write how the Indian army was defeated in the liberation of Bangladesh, when in fact the Pakistani army surrendered to the Indians.
The previous point leads me into ethics in both science and history. Science lives by ethical guidelines, especially in natural sciences. Since living things are being dealt with, scientists have to be careful when experimenting to make sure that no harm comes to these creatures. The basis of ethics in science is to provide knowledge of the "truth" without causing harm to living things. However, sometimes, ethical guidelines must be broken for the greater good. Unless extreme measures are taken in experimentation, no one will know the full scope of things. In history, ethics fits in a completely different context. The ethical issue in history is largely based on whether the information is true. If information is made up, it is disadvantageous to the gaining of knowledge and thus, people are deviated further from the Truth. Just like the previous example, it is unethical for any historian to say that the Indian army was defeated by Pakistan, when there is clear evidence suggesting that Pakistan surrendered to India. In addition, when things are made up, it depreciates the meaning of history and instead of being a reality, turns it into a fantasy.
An interesting point to observe is that psychologically speaking, memories are defined as reconstructions of the past. Memories are also part of history. What the psychological theory dictates is that people cannot recall memories 100% accurately; rather they may include other experiences in their reconstruction. Similarly, history may function in the same way only if the historical evidence is someone's account of an event. In science, there is no room for reconstruction because it works in the present. However, there are scientists that conduct replications of experiments, and these sometimes result in a modification of the original method.
Having said that, I believe that scientific facts are more reliable than historical facts. I say this because with science, I can physically sense the phenomenon in question, whereas with history I have doubts about past events. For example, some historians argue that Panama gained independence only because of American support; while others say that it was due to the will of the masses. There are others that compromise saying that it was due to both causes. The point is that there are so many disputes about this historical event so sacred to the Panamanian people that I don't know what to believe. With science, I can clearly distinguish cause and effect. For example, I know that if I pour acid on plants, they will die because their cell membranes will burst, destroying them. There is a minimum amount of dispute there.
The quality of science that I like is that you don't say how something should be, you just accept the fact that nature is that way. For example, you won't say that the planets should revolve around Earth. Rather, you say that all planets, including Earth, revolve around the Sun because of its great mass and attraction force. With history, some people view that an event should've happened one way. For example, some people in Pakistan think that the disputed region of Kashmir should belong to Pakistan because Muslims ruled it for centuries. However, real history says that it legally belongs to India because its leader handed Kashmir over to them in 1947. So there is the conflict in what should have happened and what really happened.
History and science are both very distinct areas of knowledge. However, they are both similar in their ways of understanding the truth. Scientific facts are testable, while historical facts are merely reconstructions of the past that cannot be directly observed in the present. However, science is much more complex in language because of its specific jargon, while history can be understood by almost everyone.
Science uses the scientific method to explore the "truth". This is a systematic process that involves constant observation, hypothesis making and experimentation. In a similar manner, history also follows the same pattern. A historian has to observe the evidence presented and form a hypothesis about how it fits in history. However, the problem with this is that the hypothesis cannot be tested, since it is a reconstruction of events. Therefore, a controversy will arise because the interpretation of the evidence might contain a bias of the historian, which will be hard to prove. Thus, there will be a stalemate as to the actual truth of the hypothesis. This shows how historical facts lack certainty compared to scientific facts.
On the other hand, science also contains biases in its conclusions. Some researchers ignore the results that go against their hypothesis, or they may not equally administer the methods to each of the participants. It is very important for science to do everything according to its strict procedures if it wishes to unveil the "truth." Moreover, a scientist doing the same study as another scientist may challenge his/her results. Let us compare both theories with an example. After careful analysis of pieces of evidence that he collected for years, a historian concludes that Japan's actions against the US were justified. However, since the historian cannot go back in time, this view is open-ended and challenged by several historians in the US. Similarly, a scientist researching the effects of music on a person's mood may conclude that it affects people significantly, while another scientist may disagree. On the other hand, there are situational contexts that determine the validity of data. These examples basically show the perceptual differences found in history and science that affect the understanding of the "truth".
Despite the perceptual differences in science and history, both are also interrelated. History depends on science to reveal information about the past. For example, scientists and historians to determine the age of something frequently use the carbon-dating method. Thus, this scientific method opens the door for historians to better fit their reconstructions in context. To reciprocate, science also depends on history. An example would be in medical science when reviewing patients' histories. This tells a doctor what procedure to carry out for the patient.
When it comes to language, there is a very big distinction between both areas of knowledge. Science is more complicated to understand because it uses jargon specific to its fields. For example, biology will have completely different words than physics. This complicates matters because it affects the understanding of the world as a whole for an average person. However, in history the language is much more simple. There are no specific words that belong to history and it is easy to understand. There is, however, one point that stands out. Historiography is at risk of being exaggerated by emotions. Referring back to the perception, a historian could get carried away by his/her emotions and write exaggerated things that never happened. For example, a Pakistani historian will probably write how the Indian army was defeated in the liberation of Bangladesh, when in fact the Pakistani army surrendered to the Indians.
The previous point leads me into ethics in both science and history. Science lives by ethical guidelines, especially in natural sciences. Since living things are being dealt with, scientists have to be careful when experimenting to make sure that no harm comes to these creatures. The basis of ethics in science is to provide knowledge of the "truth" without causing harm to living things. However, sometimes, ethical guidelines must be broken for the greater good. Unless extreme measures are taken in experimentation, no one will know the full scope of things. In history, ethics fits in a completely different context. The ethical issue in history is largely based on whether the information is true. If information is made up, it is disadvantageous to the gaining of knowledge and thus, people are deviated further from the Truth. Just like the previous example, it is unethical for any historian to say that the Indian army was defeated by Pakistan, when there is clear evidence suggesting that Pakistan surrendered to India. In addition, when things are made up, it depreciates the meaning of history and instead of being a reality, turns it into a fantasy.
An interesting point to observe is that psychologically speaking, memories are defined as reconstructions of the past. Memories are also part of history. What the psychological theory dictates is that people cannot recall memories 100% accurately; rather they may include other experiences in their reconstruction. Similarly, history may function in the same way only if the historical evidence is someone's account of an event. In science, there is no room for reconstruction because it works in the present. However, there are scientists that conduct replications of experiments, and these sometimes result in a modification of the original method.
Having said that, I believe that scientific facts are more reliable than historical facts. I say this because with science, I can physically sense the phenomenon in question, whereas with history I have doubts about past events. For example, some historians argue that Panama gained independence only because of American support; while others say that it was due to the will of the masses. There are others that compromise saying that it was due to both causes. The point is that there are so many disputes about this historical event so sacred to the Panamanian people that I don't know what to believe. With science, I can clearly distinguish cause and effect. For example, I know that if I pour acid on plants, they will die because their cell membranes will burst, destroying them. There is a minimum amount of dispute there.
The quality of science that I like is that you don't say how something should be, you just accept the fact that nature is that way. For example, you won't say that the planets should revolve around Earth. Rather, you say that all planets, including Earth, revolve around the Sun because of its great mass and attraction force. With history, some people view that an event should've happened one way. For example, some people in Pakistan think that the disputed region of Kashmir should belong to Pakistan because Muslims ruled it for centuries. However, real history says that it legally belongs to India because its leader handed Kashmir over to them in 1947. So there is the conflict in what should have happened and what really happened.
History and science are both very distinct areas of knowledge. However, they are both similar in their ways of understanding the truth. Scientific facts are testable, while historical facts are merely reconstructions of the past that cannot be directly observed in the present. However, science is much more complex in language because of its specific jargon, while history can be understood by almost everyone.