What is unique about the methodology of history compared to

other areas of knowledge?

Uniqueness in methodology of history in comparison with other areas of knowledge

is that Historical methodology refers to the process by which historians gather
evidence and formulate ideas about the past. Primary sources and secondary
sources should be studied in order to build opinions on the past. An interpretation or
a certain idea about the past might be drawn up after studying sources. Two
questions arise from the study of historical methodology: "How can the relatability of
resources be determined?" And the second one "To what extent is collaborative
research necessary in history?”. “Unique” is the only one of a specific type for
example the distinctiveness of historians is that Historians write, as accurately as
possible, stories of past people, places, and events and “Methodology” is Methods
system utilized in a certain field of study or practice like primary sources and
secondary resources in history. The objective of this paper is to distinguish methods
across history, natural science and mathematics and prove Historical Methodology's
distinctive nature.

Historical study draws on a wide range of primary and secondary sources, as well as
oral tradition. Primary Sources of Information, Accounts from eyewitnesses, Oral or
written testimony can be found in public records, court documents, meeting minutes,
newspapers, diaries, letters, and artefacts like posters, billboards, photographs,
drawings, and papers, located in university archives or special collections, as well as
collections held by local historical societies and privately owned collections.
Secondary sources are Textbooks, encyclopedias, journal articles, newspapers,
biographies, and media such as film or tape recordings all provide this information.
Whereas Mathematics and Natural Sciences is solely based on proofs and
theorems. The fact that history is by its very nature no longer present distinguishes
this field of study. Historians can't see what happened in the past in real time. When
we talk about the past, this makes it much more difficult to make solid claims. Natural
science and mathematics are carried out by doing current experiments and
computations, therefore they do not need to acquire data from the past, as is the
case with history. When researching the historical sources, it's important to keep in
mind that some sources are more reliable than others. When it comes to secondary
sources, reliability is a concern because they are second-hand and may contain
biases and mistakes, as well as not being appropriate for the historian's needs.
Historians need credible primary sources to conduct solid historical research.
Records made at the moment of an occurrence, or as close to it as feasible, have a
better probability of being accurate than records made years later, especially by
someone who did not witness the event directly. When taking collaborative research
under concern, Historians collaborate in a variety of ways on a regular basis. The
giants on whose shoulders we stand are attested to by footnotes linking to
secondary literature. Working closely with archivists, librarians, and curators, whose
in-depth knowledge of their collections leads historians in new directions, is an
important part of research. While historians may find the first writing period to be
solitary, the process of turning early versions into final works with the assistance of
editors is essentially collaborative. The same collaborative study is utilized in
mathematics and natural sciences to conduct experiments to establish a theory, as
well as by historians to gain a detailed understanding of the past. In history,
collaborative research ensures the accuracy and credibility of the sources.
This doesn’t mean history’s methodology is better than other areas of knowledge.
History lacks in unbiased and accurate solutions when compared to mathematics
and Natural Sciences. We can’t say that Relativity and Pythagoras theorem is false
because the theories are backed up with sufficient evidence and proofs and proved
to be reliable to this date, whereas History takes place in the past and not many
people would have clear view of what happened in the past as accurate as possible
and clears a huge confusion among people. The situation also gets worse when
some of the histories are written in a biased manner even-handed opinion. The
present examples include the anti-holocaust concerns saying some of the events are
considered false. This is what lacks the most when it comes to the methodology of
history when compared to other areas of knowledge such as natural sciences and
mathematics.

Even though history faces many drawbacks, history helps us to know about the past
and the facts that is said to proven by historians is accepted by many people even
though few of them seem to disregard the work produced by historians. The fact that
history is by its very nature no longer present distinguishes this field of study.
Historians can't see what happened in the past in real time. When we talk about the
past, this makes it much more difficult to make precise claims.