Opinion response exercise
Is history a science?
This opinion response survey will be due next Thursday (Nov 21) by classtime.
Please read through the directions first before starting to read the opinions (if you haven't already in past assignments). Please remember that your "critique" should be formatted in your email as follows (but replace the "#" symbol with actual numbers).
best,#,#,#
new idea,#,#,#
If your name begins with the letters A to D, please read responses 1 to 17
If your name begins with the letters E to K, please read responses 18 to 34
If your name begins with the letters L to N, please read responses 35 to 50
If your name begins with the letters O to Z, please read responses 51 to 66
The order of the opinions is generally according to the order in which they were received.
You are welcome, of course, to read responses outside your own set if you have time and interest.
1. I believe that it is in some respects because history is the study of the past and all science isn't the study of the past but dinosaurs and ancient enviornments are. So in certain contexts science is ur history. We study the ancient indians and question why they disapeared which relates to science. I think in some way it is all intertwined but hard to take apart. I am kninda indifferent about this question because when I think of my past I don't think of science but I do so I really don't know.
2. Is history a science? I believe that the study of history is a science but that the past itself is not. To study something is to analyze; to pick apart and probe into the "why's" of things. That is what science is - Why do things work the way they do? To study the past is to analyze what people, animals and plants have done throughout their lives on this planet. Through this study, we learn through the experiences of others. The past is there, it is past, we cannot reclaim it. It just is. However, by studying the past, we create a science.
3. I think that history is a science, depending on what context you use it with. When studying dinosaurs, history is a science. The two work together. History itself is a science, because when you look at the timeline when things happend, it is a science to figure out the exact dates or the relative dating. Then again, history isn't a science because science is just that, not history. History is just facts that happened and science is trying to figure out certain facts. It's almost like Computer Science and Math. You use math in computer science, but they're not the same even though each go hand in hand.
4. History should def. be considered a science. In normal science you have to be precise. Although in some cases you can't be precise, in history the historians try their best to beprecise. In regular science, you have to gather information from research and experiments.
In history, you have to gather data and interpolate from finds. Both history and science require the same skills, if applied in slighty different fashions. Therefore, history is a kind of science.
5. I feel that history is a science because it invloved reasoning. It involves thinking about why certain people have acted upon events that they have come across. What really is science anyway, it is a reasoning course. History is a reasoning course. I am doing research work on why religions go bad, and that involved reason. It involved reason to figure out how old a dinosour is, or what it ate. That is why science and history are reasoning courses
6. I believe history is a science because science can be defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Also activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena which can be applied to an object of inquiry or study. History of life on earth has been a natural phenomenon and has been studied, investigated and through experience, much knowledge is gained by history. Another reason I believe history is a science because there are many theories about our history some have been discussed in depth and some have not.
7. History isn't so much of a science as how one would think of biology or chemistry but it does serve to answer questions and explain things as a science does. History can tell us what happened in the past and explain how things were as well as answer questions. SOme of the questions could be how did people live then, what they did in ordr to survive and what kind of culture they had. History can also gives us answers as to where we came from as well as other organisms.
8. Is history a science? In a way, it should be. History should be fact, it should be like a scientific discovery that proves something, but doesn't necessarily change. The truth of the matter is, history is often changing after people find out new truths, or the truth is hidden. Not everyone actually knows about history as it can often be hidden from the public. So, I suppose the way a scientist picks apart at a subject, or searches for answers, then yes, history is a science. A difficult and meticulous task that when done properlly should yield that facts.
9. History is a much debated subject, having two variables. I feel I cannot make a stong opinion leaning only one way. This is because I believe that both science and religion are needed to put together a full consensous of the earth's history.
10. I believe that science is a form of history, since it tells about the past, present, and the future. Since science is a source of past information it is then considered a history. Science is able to record events and is more thorough in some aspects on some events that happened in the past. So I personally am led to believe that science is a form of history, since it does record the past.
11. History is a science because like science, information we know and label as “facts” or the “truth” is forever changing as new discoveries, ideas and interpretations are made. Science works much the same way as history only history uses written records of human activities and science uses other means to derive information. In both history and science, the information is interpreted by the scientist or the historian and thus the information is biased, not fully truth. In history this seems to be more prevalent but if a person takes a closer look at science and its methods, the scientist must interpret data in order to give it meaning. Another example of bias in science when people of the same field refute the ideas of others and disprove them.
This seems to suggest that science and history are not all that different.
12. I do not think of history as science. Granted, digging up dinosaur bones is considered a science, and what is found in the ground is history, I don't think that all science can be considered a history. It is way too broad a topic to be placed under the category of history.
There are too many things involved in science that are not considered a history. So to make things easier, some aspects of science, like the history of life on earth, should be considered both a science and a history, but only specific parts of the subject.
13. We know that humans make mistakes, 50 years sgo people didn't think smoking was bad for you and now it's hailed as the black death. So as we evolove so does our knowledge and therefor we should not blindly follow the history that we learn from science but as a general outline that can be subjected to change.
14. [a 2nd response after classroom discussion] I agree with some of my classmates saying that history can't be a science because no experiments can be done to prove things. In my mind I can't think of any experiments that could be done. History is a type of science because it does involved reasoning but you can't mix two chemicals together to find out why someone conquored some far away lands. In chemistry of biology, experiments can be done and they can be replicated, so they can show other scientists why things happen. That's what I think a real science is, you need experiments that can be replicated for it to be a real science.
15. This is a very difficult question to answer. I think it depends on what kind of history you are talking about. History of topics such as the Revolutionary War are not types that one would normally find scientific. However, like other kinds of history, where people try and figure out the causes of things like why animals behaved the way they did, this kind has mysteries as well. While there is some evidence to why animals behaved the way they did, there is also some evidence as to why people of the past behaved the way they did. But in both situations, nobody from today was actually there, therefore not everything can be known. A lot of detective work must be done.
16. I think that history can be viewed as a science but that depends on your own defination of science. I would not consider history a science because you can not do experiments on history to prove that it really did happen. On the other hand, you research history like you research science, and there can be physical evidence supporting what happened in the past.
17. History is absolutely a science because both subject matters must coincide to create a meaningful definition for one another. Were history not a science, there would be little reason to learn about any past event because it would not have the proof we feel we need to validate that what we are learning is, indeed, fact. There are many reasons that people are able to teach the values of science and history, one of which is because they are able to support their theories by using reasoning and research to comprehend or theorize what happened in the past.
18. In regards to the question of history being considered a science I must say my opinion is that it can be considered a science. A science is the study of somthing. When history is studied then it could be considered a science. But history by itself is not a science. It is what has happened in the past.
19. It is hard to determine whether history is a science when science itself has no concrete definition. Science involves reasoning and experimentation, conclusions and descriptions, but what is it exactly? History, whose definition is as equally ambiguous as that of science, can in some cases be considered a science by the stipulations outlining the general definition of the term. Paleontolgy, for example, which focuses on the life and events millions of years ago, can be considered a science, as it involves reasoning and deduction as well as interpretation of evidence in order to further knowledge. Paleontogists run experiments and tests on their finds in order to prove theories. Theories and hypotheses are an intrinsic part of science, and experimentes must be conducted to determine the validity of those surmises. History therefore, in the case of paleontology and its related fields can be considered science.
20. In our school systems, history is considered a social science. Social sciences differ from the so-called natural sciences in their approach to certain topic. To an extent, both sciences use the scientific method to create reasons for why things occur. Social sciences deal with more subjective issues, such as culture, history, and psychology, and often rely on inductive reasoning to establish reasons. This does not make history any less a science than chemistry; it just establishes a theoretical distinction between them. Social sciences may use deductive reasoning as well, but the results do not usually occur as “proofs.”
21. History is a science in the way that it has evolutionized over time.
Also science holds a history in itself since it has been developed over the past hundred years. I would have to say that history as a science is a little abstract but science in history plays a very large roll. As soon as science came about, it revolutionized and became more and more prominent in our world. Science has become very important in almost a physical why considering all the new technological gagets we can get our hand on these days, and history still remains a very important part of our lives although it is seen in a more intangable way in how it has evolutionized from the very begining of time.
22. Technically I don’t see history as a science. When I think of the subject of history the first things that come to mind are studying how people lived in the past, what their social behaviors were like, and how society progressed to the state in which it is now. When looking at science however, I think of studying cells and organisms, how the bodies of humans and animals function, and how creatures have progressed over time physically. I have never associated one of these subjects with the other before; in fact they seemed complete opposites. That might come from growing up with them being taught separately, but I find it very hard to think of history in terms of it being a science.
23. By its very subjective nature history cannot be called a true science. Personal beliefs and thinking of the tome skew ideas and change "history". To the Romans the Celts were barbarians because well they were different and therefore backwards and wrong. Another key element of the scientific method is repetition and since history can't be repeated just like philosophy cant be proved, it is not a science.
24. I do not think that history is a science. I think it is a representation of facts and inferred opinions. These facts may have physical evidence, textual evidence, but most of the times there are holes in the evidence, and whoever is studying or trying to figure out the history will have to infer about historical objects which have no evidence or vary inconclusive evidence.
25. As a history major, I can certainly say that history is indeed a science. While not involving chemicals or formulas, the ability of putting together missing links is found in both history and science. For example, both fields of study involve placing together dates, physical evidence, and those pieces missing from the puzzle. In addition both history and science are re-writing themselves on a continual basis and often intertwine. For example, people once thought the world was flat. That notion was proven wrong by both researchers and adventurers who made the history and science books. It is important to place history and science in the same category, as eventually they will aid each other in solving the secrets of the earth and those who inhabit it.
26. It depends which type of history you are talking about. American history is not science because it is just views of what happened in the past, which is usually distorted due to the American culture trying to make American seem like the ideal by doing no wrong. However, studies like paleontology is a science. They are studying events from the past as well, but they are studying living organisms and are trying to discover where life came from. They offer new insight about past life that is not distorted by some cultural view. It is straight facts, or assumptions, about how things use to be. So therefor some history is science, but others are not. It depends on what the material being presented is and how “clean” it really is.
27. Some history is science. History concerning the order of U.S.
presidents is certainly not science. On the other hand, the historical study of dinosaurs and mastadons is science. Figuring out information from whatever little evidence is available, using the scientific method, is what scientists do. Paleontologists are scientists and historians. They sometimes have little information to work with from the fossil record, but have an ability to recreate the past using a systematic plan of attack.
28. History shares several aspects with science as a subject. Both involve understanding relationships and how to use reasoning. They also build upon the past. However, I think that history does not fall into the category of a science. Sciences look towards the future and work to discovery and development while history is an objective observation of events around us. Science is an act while History is an observation - both are equally respectable, but I think they do two different things.
29. Is history a science? I would have to say definetly. You formulate a hypothesis for an event in the past then you use problem solving and reasoning to test your hypothesis, just like the scientific method.
History isn't any less of a science than biology, chemistry, or physics. Your basically just trying to come up with an explanation for things, its just that they happened already but you don't know why they happened.
30. I think history applies to many different subjects and science is one of them. If it wasn't for history, science would not be able to look back and make conclusions based on past information. Science is what allows us to find explanations and reasons to questions about life on earth. But understanding life on earth means understanding the history of life on earth from the earliest signs of life, to the present. History is such a large topic to understand because it overlaps into so many fields of study but it is through these different fields of study that history pieces everything together.
History can be learned through various subjects unknowingly, because almost everything that exist on earth today has so sort of history whether we know it or not. Science more or less than works with history to achieve a common goal of understanding life.
31. Is history a science? I feel that soem forms of history can in turn be a science, but have been divided up seperately because of the way they are taught. Sciences should consist of subjects that contain pure facts with a specific way to prove your findings. But, in history, you may have info that is taught to you but a lot fo it there is no way to prove that is truely what happened. Also, science is universal, which everyone shares the same knowledge. On the other hand, History and its facts depend on where you live and how you are percieving it, similar to our westernized view. In conclusion, no hostory should not be taught as a science because there are some underlying details that set both apart.
32. History is a science. But, more importantly, science is part of history. Math, english, poetry, etc. are all part of history aren't they? Everything that has ever hapened in the whole world and every class subject is part of history. As for history being a science, it is. A science is, accoeding to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, an area of knowledge that is an object of study. I agree with this interpretation. We learn about history everyday whether we think about it or not. And whatever it is we speak about is something we are studying. Most everything we learn about are sciences. Everything we learn about is history.
33. I would say that yes, history is a science. Hence the name of this class, the history of life on earth.
Although it doesn't fulfill the Gen Ed requirements for a history class, it still has a lot of history in it even though it is a science class. History is basically studying the past so we know how to deal with the future. We also study science to know how to deal with the future. Therefore the two are basically the same thing.
34. I believe that part of history is science. I think that things such as the study of ancient artifacts and the study of archaeology are more science related then history. Studies like the civil war and the revolutionary war, etc. are all part of history, but things that are much older, and have to do with scientific properties should be considered science in stead of history. I basically feel that no history is not a science.
35. In my opinion, the study of history is a science. Science is defined as “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena”. History is the study of what has happened, or rather the investigation of, what has happened in the past. By using science, especially observation, we can use history to learn from past mistakes of older cultures, or better understand our own lives. Therefore the study of history is a science because by using scientific procedures, it can be used to better society as a whole.
36. History is Science. Many things are science. If we expand upon the category of science we can encorporate pretty much whatever we want to be called science. However, history is the science of our life. By this I mean the actions and progression are notable marked in society. Similarly to science, history keeps a diary of evolution.
37. I beleive that History and Science are very closely related. Both require extensive resaerch and knowledge and both feilds of study are continually braodening. Often times one is needed to understand the other. For instance, there is such a thing as the history of science.
We all learn about such historical figures as Darwin and Newton in order to better understand their theories. In addition, scientific study can help to determine factors such as, what a particular climate was like at a given time. This can be helpful when trying to understand how a group of people or animals might have lived. In fact Science and History are so closely related that the two feilds sometimes merge to form one area of study, such as paleontology or anthropology.
38. History should be classified as a science. Science is described as knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts. When historians look at past events, they decipher what is fact and what is fiction. Also, what caused the incident to occur and how, if necessary, it can be avoided in the future. Scientists, in the more traditional conception, do the exact same thing. They observe, record, study, and conclude, though their topics might be more abstract and complicated. History can be viewed as more of a social science and biology, chemistry, and physics are looked upon as more physical sciences. In the end however, all sciences are researched in the same matter and are just as important in our understanding of the world.
39. I don' think history is a science. Science in itself can be included as a part of history, for its ability to create records and re-create scenes from the past, but history itself does not go by a certain established set of rules and theories that dictate the outcomes within it. The history of dinosaurs, plants, animals, and humans for example are explained by science, but i think history, in the context of what is taught in schools was created deliberatley seperate from science in order to add more cultural distinction and create a more humanistic quality for people to specifically relate rather than have everything presented in such a cut and dry way. History stilll creates many questions about societies, and much of the dependence and reverence of history creates the nationalism and ethnocentrism that cause the problems in the world today.
40. I do think history is a science. When trying to figure out how old something is or what it was, you follow the same set of steps every time, just like science. When you discover something old, it's like discovering something new again. You know nothing about it, so you have to learn all you can about it using the information you have.
41. History and science share many similar charactaristics. They both follow the same chronological path and they both have uncertainties.
It think though that it is a far cry to call history a science.
History is based on human opinions and perspectives on particular unrepeatable events. It is said that the victors write the history books. Events happen because of the qualities and conflicts of humans which is the very reason that it is unreliable. It is based in opinion and perspective and not pure fact. The only way to prove a scientific theory is to be able to repeat an experiment. Science must prove the existance of certain phenomena whereas history is full of phenomena that undeniably happened. The two are therefore comprable but not interchangeable.
42. In some terms history is a sience. For example, a paleontologist is not only a scientist but also a historian. They study the anatomy of dinosaurs but also uncover the history of dinosaurs. But, if you look at science in terms of physics, or chemistry history is not a science.
There are many definitions of science. One is: "Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge." This definition fits in with history being sort of science. And then there is the more scientifical definition of science: "Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena." It all depends on how you define science.
43. The question “Is history a science?” is kind of a broad topic, and is a bit hard to answer because of this. I believe that to answer this question it must be made more specific what kind of history is being talked about. I think that if it is history of the earth, plants and animals, evolution, and all things like that, then yes, history is a science. However, on the other hand, if the history is history of countries, cultures, wars, and all things like this, then I don’t really think that history is a science. This may be because I have come to think of “science” as having to do with the physical world, and since the history of countries and cultures and so forth is not so much about the physical world, I don’t think of it as a science.
44. While I think that science is part of our history I don't belive that history is part of science. When I think of science I think of quantitative and qualitative analysis. But, when I think of history, I think of the past and reasoning/philosophy. I don't believe that history is a science. I think that there are things that are scientifically historical (such as the discovery of the double helix) however I don't think that the history of WWII is scientific.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that there are things, such as dinosaurs that are both history and science, however I don't think that history, itself, is a science.
45. I believe that if you use the term science loosley than even teaching the english language could be a science. There is a science to everything, so why not history? I understand that history is an integral part of history, and it is part of the humanities, but it could very well be a science. To be honest though, I feel that to classify history as a "science" would be to confusing for most.
46. I see science as more a study of why things happen while history is more a study of things that have happened. There are however social elements of life that could be considered as science such as politics.
Studying politics gives one an explanation of events that may take place in a governmental arena just as studying chemistry looks at reactions in a chemical environemnt. This however is the exception, because history is a survey not a science.
47. In a theoretical sense, yes history is a science because it fits all of the qualifications. History however does not fulfill the one aspect of having to form hypothesis to make it a science. Science includes makeing hypothesies and conducting experiments, history does not include
48. History is definatley a science. The idea of discoverying history is closley related to science. As we have discussed in this class paleantologist use basic reasoning to figure oit adn reconstruct the past. that is the basis of science. Also , just as in science, hypothosis's are always formed. Until that have been proven many times in many different ways they do not become facts. Each dig is like an experiment. History is a science undeniably.
49. I personally dont believe that history should be regarded as a science. I am not discrediting history a legitimate field of study, but I believe that natural sciences and social sciences are clearly distinct. Natural sciences (or plainly 'science') use the scientific method, experimentation, and re-experimentation to reach conclusions.
History uses different methods. History, although an objective approach, cannot find answers that are absolutely independent of the human condition, which is the goal of science. Amino acids make up proteins, there's no disputing that, that is law no matter what humans say, for example. However, history is merely a study of human thought.
50. No I do not believe that history is a science. A science is something that can be proven by a series of experiments. History however is a group of events that have been important to society and the natural world. There are aspects of history that science can attribute to and help to understand. Paeleontology are archeology are two fields that are incorporated into both history and science. They coorespond to each other, to balance and clarify issues and ideas. I do not think history is a science, but it does need to it to exsist fully.
51. Science is defined in the dictionary as an "area of knowledge that is object of study." So, in that case, yes, history is a science. It is not science in the fact that it does not follow the Scientific Method.Many theories are made and studied, but most of the time experiments can't be done on them to prove them right or wrong.Butit is stilla social science, which is a science dealing with a particular aspect of human society.History studies are often used to learn more about people and cultures and to compare different people, etc. I think it can be considered a science. </DIV></BODY></HTML><br clear=all><hr>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : <a href='http://explorer.msn.com'>http://explorer.msn.com</a></p>
52. Science is a discipline that involves forming hypotheses and testing them by making observations and collecting data. Science attempts to give logical explanations for occurrences in nature; it looks for the causes behind the effects that humans can easily observe. History also studies cause and effect, but beyond that, the two fields are dissimilar. History outlines and interprets known facts in a subjective manner. History often attempts to explain the causes of war and the motivations of leaders, but historians can only draw upon the past. They cannot consistently predict what will happen in the future, nor can they set up controlled experiments to test their ideas.
53. History is a science because it's a study of something. Scientific things that have happenned are in the past so does that mean they are no longer scientific. Events that happen millions of years ago are both a science and a history, with both ideas behind it, the area will be studied better. That's like saying the big bang theory needs to be studied by historians, not by scientists because it happenned in the past.
54. A vast majority of the history field is discovered by science, so I don’t see how it couldn’t be considered a science. The name of our science course is even the HISTORY of life on Earth. We determine the life styles of ancestors and events in ancient times through artifacts and by using other scientific means. Archaeologists must have a balance of knowledge between science and history in order to accurately assume what happened in the olden days when records were not kept. The only way they can come to logical conclusions is by using the science of history.
55. I am not really sure that this is a black or white issue for me. In Merriam Webster dictionary, science is defined as:The state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
According to Websters, history is defined as: a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes. History is completely biased. Attitude change depending on the culture one lives in. So I think that science is not a history if a person accepts the Merriam Websters definition. If science is supposed to be an unbiased "state of knowing," then it cannot qualify as history
56. History is a science because we can learn from the past histories of various cultures and creatures and prepare for the future with by using what we discover. History helps to determine a year or give a time to an event and this makes it alot easier to understand information over the different time periods.By utilizing history we can better understand why certain thigns occurred and hopefully prevent similar happenings in the future. We can learn from mistakes or tragedies of one soceity and grow stronger as a nation and a species too. One example of history that we are trying to avoid or do not want repeated is the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, we use history to expand our knowledge and to better recognize the past's efforts too.
57. History is without a doubt a science. The ability to discern what has happened in the past requires the us of numerous techniques and relentless questioning. The ability to find out exactly what happened in the past requires a scientist to be a type of detective, only the clues are more than a few days old. Science is the process of understanding something out of ignorance. Therefor history must be a science. We are learning more information about the past that we were previoulsy ignorant to. The ability to examine evidence and correlate facts to create a theory about what happened in the past may perhaps be one of the most difficult processes in science. Many facts are not absolute. They may be based on similarities to what we know today, but we may never for certain know what happened in the past without a firsthand account of the events.
58. I believe that history is a science. Science is defined in Webster's Dictionary as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena. You can define history in a similar way if you think about it. Both of these fields rely on people to believe something occurred or occurs that they cannot see with there own eyes. How do we know that the Egyptians built the pyramids no one living was there and in the same way how do we know that radio waves exist? These are both true because we can see the pyramids today and hear radio waves on a radio. People had to research and find basis for both of these things before they were accepted for fact. Another way these two are connected is they are fields of study that are constantly getting new information that in turn may change how a certain aspect that has been accepted for a long time will now be obsolete. They are very similar in the ways that they explain what happens. Historians and Scientists study, research, and are always looking for new facts to prove what they think.
59. To consider history a science, one must consider the definition of science itself. If science is considered 'the state of knowing' or 'a department of sytematized knowledge as an object of study' (as it is defined in Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary), then history could indeed be considered as such. Many scholars systematically study the events of the past -- looking at such areas as technology, society, and culture -- and through this lens, history can be seen as scientific. However, the interpretation of history, by the nature of its subjectiveness, cannot and should not be seen as scientific.
60. I believe that certain aspects of history can be labeled as a science. Many things that have happened in history like in science are not always the truth. We take something that might be bold, groundbreaking, and divine and we strain it through our prejudices leaving only a skewed narrow sliver of what is. That is the nature of truth, it does not stand up to the tests of science, because truth has personality. They be truthful<I>,</I> in that we have no other way to explain what happened, but it may not be the facts. That is simply because history is history and once it happens we cannot get it back. Figuring out what happened in our past is undoubtly a science in itself.
61. I do not believe that history is considered a science.
History, to me, is the study of the past while science looks at problems of the present and tries to create solutions. I do, however, think it is important for History and Science to work together.
Many things in our history can help scientists today by giving them a base knowledge for how everything started. Both science and history are very important, and while we can learn from the mistakes of the past (history), scienists can look at those mistakes and find the best way to prevent them from happening in the future.
62. Webster’s Dictionary defines science as, “Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.” Thus, someone who gains an understanding of the current state of the world, environmentally, politically, or economically, though observation is classified as a scientist. Then the study of the history of life must, in essence, be a science. Scientists in this field are observing, studying, and experimenting on evidence of the history of life and making deductions regarding evolutionary adaptations, climate change, and species preservation. This satisfies the criteria implied in the definition of science; therefore, the study of the history of life must be considered a science.
63. I think history is a kind of science, because within the word science, holds many unanswered questions. Science can be reffering to Biology, chemistry, some mathematics, even politics. There is a whele social science requirement at this school which is like a "people science".
Through science, we begin to understand why people in history may have done the things that they did. Scientific support for historical events makes history come alive.
64. No, history is not a science. Science is defined by its experiments, and the ability to duplicate the results of these experiments. History is not an experiment. History is the past: a record of what has happened. Although history is said to "repeat itself," these replications are of general concepts, and are coincidental. History is not precise and controlled enough to fit into the science category.
65. I do believe that history is a science. In order to find out important infomation about ancient artifacts you must use scientific techniques to find out the accurate age of the artifact. Also, scientific testing would be used on soil samples to see where the artifactcame from.
If you did not use science in trying to find out important information then your research would be inaccurate.
66. Is science a history? Science has numerous definitions. It depends on what definition one will look at when determining the answer to this question. If one looks at the definition that "science is the observation, identification, and experimental investigation, of a phenomena",I would say that no, science is not a history.One is not observing it or doing any type of experimental investigation they are simply learning from the past and what already happened usually through an already printed medium. If one uses the definition that “science is an activity that appears to require study and method such as the science of purchasing” I would say that science is a history. One will need to study the methods that were used in the past and that worked when purchasing something. It depends on how one defines science as to whether is it considered a history or not.