Objectivity of history could be define as “respect of truth”, any historical writing should be based on

solid facts, without of thoughts, biases and partiality regardless of tribes, gender, race, sex, and nation.

There are many objections raised against the objectivity of history.

 The biggest objection is, you cannot verify as we do not have access in given past to judge
whether it is true of not.
 Sometimes evidence is incomplete, some historians have bias opinions so you cannot check the
facts. Miracles are super historical, miracles are not empirically verifiable and are myths.
 Objectivity is history, it cannot be objectivity of facts and absolute truth is unachievable.
 The selective nature of research is subjective. The historian never uses all available information
but selects what seems the most important to him/her. Objectivity is not possible.
 The historian has incomplete knowledge of historical occasions, he has to seal deep dumps with
imagination. Hence he adds into history his own subjectivity.

Various historians in defense of history. A reasonable but revisable arrangement that sensible human
being should accept. The problem of incidental access, history can be seen as objective if does not mean
absolute knowledge. Mostly people tend to listen elders, whatever they tell younger ones they accepts
the facts as true because when they tries to verify facts, little dot of evidences drags them to the big
events.

History is a science or art, History is based around facts, therefore there needs to be a matter of fact
judgment that says what discipline history belongs to. History is both science and arts. Before jumping to
topic it is necessary to discuss what is science and arts. The arts can be defined as the expression or
application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as a painting or
sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty and emotional power and
science is knowledge, or learning or any branch of it.

In the mid of 19th century, theories are challenged and counter-challenged. What is evident from all of
this is the absence of a single solution to the problem, nobody is able to say ‘History is science’ or
‘History is art’ with confidence. This is because the subject matter is highly delicate to the historical
profession. Therefore perhaps the best outcome would be to say that history is neither singularly art nor
science, rather is a fusion of the two disciplines.

Convergence of science and history despite their very different beginnings, convergence is a history of
modern science with an original and significant curl, various scientific disciplines. Have been coming
together over the past 150 years, converging and blending. Close connections have been discovered
between physics and chemistry, psychology and biology, genetics and linguistics by Peter Watson in his
book. It identifies one extraordinary master narrative, capturing how the sciences are slowly resolving
into one overwhelming, interlocking story about the universe. The idea of the conservation of energy
was introduced in this decade, as was Darwin’s theory of evolution both of which rocketed the sciences
forward and revealed unimagined interconnections and overlaps between disciplines. The story then
proceeds from each major breakthrough and major scientist to the next, leaping between fields and
linking them together. Decade after decade, the story captures every major scientific advance en route
to the present, proceeding like a cosmic detective story, or the world’s most massive code-breaking
effort.
Divergence between science and history Philosophers of history occupy an ambiguous, but often
interesting position between historians on the one hand and philosophers of science on the other, trying
usually to convince historians that historiography has more logical structure than they care to admit and
philosophers of science that it has less than they wish to impute to it. Sociology means any view that
there are fully general laws by reference to which the changes in social institutions become rationally
intelligible. History means any genetic account of the coming into being or passing away of actions,
institutions, or individual or social states of consciousness, and their presuppositions. In the English-
speaking world, most historians have intuitive allegiance to the second of these movements, and a well-
developed although possibly specious sense of the autonomy of historical understanding. However,
because such historians, like more theoretical social scientists, have increasingly lost touch with the
grounds of philosophical criticism, they seldom formulate with any clarity the distinction between a
conceptually neutral method and a theory of historiography whose adoption carries with it conceptual
commitments.