Introduction – Is history a science?

The question of whether history is a science is of particular interest. It is a crucial part of

history that many historians have argued over the years, as its potential to be classified as
different subjects may change how we perceive and read it. For example, if it is perceived as
a science it may end up being analysed more rigidly by simply assessing based on facts.
However, history is far more complex than that, it would be more realistic if it were seen in a
more abstract manner, as numerous external elements, such as context and bias, may limit
its ability to be entirely impartial, as science can be. To answer this, the terms science and
history must be first defined. History is defined by E.H Carr in What is history? (1961) as the
“continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue
between the present and the past.”1 And, science, as G.R. Elton describes in The Practice of
History (1967), is the study that “deals with specially prepared artificial derivatives from
what naturally occurs”2. To date there has been little agreement on the categorisation of
history, with historians like Leopold von Ranke suggesting that it would be better to consider
history as both a science and an art as it is “never one without the other” 3 and others
completely dismissing either category. This essay will look at the parallels and contrasts
between history and science in order to prove that history is not a science. It can only be
accepted as such to the extent that it examines and observes facts to draw conclusions, but
this is insufficient to fully qualify it as a science. This essay will look at six historians’ points of
view to assess how they arrived to their conclusions and why they agree or disagree with
one another. The main points that will be examined are the methodologies of both subjects,
the aims of scientists vs. historians, and why this argument has been debated for so long.

Bibliography:
Carr, E. H. ‘The historian and his facts,’ What is history?, (London, 1961), 7-30.
Elton, G.R. ‘Research,’ The practice of history, (Sydney; London, 1967), 70 -113.
Von Ranke, Leopold; Von Humboldt, Wilhelm. ‘On the Character of Historical Science,’ The
theory and practice of history, (Indianapolis, 1973), 33-46.

1
E. H. Carr, ‘The historian and his facts,’ What is history?, (London, 1961), 30.
2
G. R. Elton, ‘Research,’ The practice of history, (Sydney; London, 1967), 72.
3
Leopold von Ranke ; Wilhelm von Humboldt, ‘On the Character of Historical Science,’ The theory and practice
of history, (Indianapolis, 1973), 34.