Duck

Okay, first some obvious stuff:
In some ways history and science overlap, just as many other areas of study overlap. Also, each area is made up of different but overlapping sub-disciplines. And, the words "history" and "science" can each have different meanings in different contexts: Is what happened yesterday history? Is frying an egg science? In some ways, the answer to both questions is "yes", but that's not what we usually mean when we refer to the areas of study known as history and science.

What specifically are the differences between the two areas of study? Is there a fundamental difference in methodology, and is one "better" than the other? Does one area of study result in conclusions that are "more useful"?

An example: Is the study of ancient Egytian history or science? Or is it archaeology? Is it all three? Or is it just "the study of ancient Egyptian" -- Egyptology?

I'm trying to gain a better understanding of what historians do.

ETA:
I realize that this isn't directly about Biblical criticism but it seems to me that historical analysis plays a large role in Biblical criticism, and it seems that there are many opinions about the validity and intepretation of various historical artifacts and documents. Also, from what I know, the study of history is becoming more and more "scientific".

TerrorOfHistory

This could also go under linguistic/analytic Philosophy, which deals with the misuse / proper use of words etc. In regards to your question (and you might be able to use the socratic method to arrive at proper definitions of both of these words through this thread), my quick response is that science has the element of experimentation - lab work etc. - and has a slightly different aim than history. Science endeavors to understand the natural world through the laws that govern it etc., whereas history, human history at least, is more concerned with the interactions of things that are not entirely causal such as people, and the effects that their decisions/actions have had on the present. Science is more immutable laws and such, history is a practical study of the way ppl have behaved in the past. The way THINGS have behaved in the past - as in observation - i would think falls under science in someways. But then again, science deals with human behaviour... hmm... interesting question. I'll take some time to think on it.

Duck

I think you'll agree that people are "causal" to the extent that their "decisions/actions" have "effects". But perhaps this is one way in which science and history differ: Science looks for a cause that can be used to predict an outcome, i.e. test a hypothesis; history is interested first in identifying the result, and then hypothesizing about the cause, but not necessarily in a way that can be verified (or falsified) scientifically.Not sure if the people/thing is the key difference.

Anyway, to present an example that is more connected with Biblical criticism: How do historians/scientists determine ancient Egyptian chronology? And how do they assign a level of confidence to their calculations?

Hex

For what you're concerned with, there are several way to interpret it.

Much of what we see being attributued to 'history' involved the examination and concordance of the written word (or pictograph). In dealing with this, of course, there are reasons to doubt veracity or datings. But, what you get out of it are real, intended means of communication and the explaination of occurances.

The science of archaeology looks to try to recreate a 'picture' or understanding of the culture of past peoples. All manner of remains from the time period being examined are brought into the study to 'flesh out' the picture. This can include documentary evidence, but this has to be done carefully in order to keep it's temporal context. But, for archaeologists, there is a need for large amounts of data, as most evidence is circumstantial, and only has meaning when put into a larger contextual database.

Ideally, what we -should- see in Egyptology (and Biblical Scholarship) is a synthesis of these two. Archaeological evidence backing up historical documents and vice versa. What we usually find is that the two -don't- mesh. Small differences pop up and people vested in one means of examining the past want -their- way to be the correct one. Thus, they can 'subordinate' one means of study to the other.

Archaeologists want everything to be factual. Historians want to find documents that back up their understandings.

When we get to Biblical Scholars, they -have- to have the documents be the important part. There's belief and truth to their cosmogeny mixed up in the whole thing.



One of the tough things about Anthropology and History: As much as we want them to be scientific, they both deal with people. And people are not identical, some act in unpredictable ways. They lie, they cheat, they distract, they make mistakes, they get affected by freak occurances in nature. They don't act in a nice, clean scientific manner. Thus, these 'soft sciences' aren't exactly like the sciences of chemistry and physics ...

TerrorOfHistory

Ahh, i was trying to answer your question generally - and I found it very difficult. The problem with observing things ( I noticed as I was writing) is that through experiments and observation scientists are looking at history - what happened before - in order to determine a definite pattern. And so in that regard they are similar. In regards to your more narrow question: Neither science nor historical records are ever perfect, and they often disagree (as Hex has said). I'd say you arrive at the most certainty when you have a relative amount of agreement between the two. The last part of Hex's comment is more or less what i was going for, but i used causal incorrectly (in fact that is a word that analytic philosophers have battled with), i meant to say that humans will not necessarily act predictably when a force acts upon them, whereas forces that act upon objects necessitate a certain result. That ties into humans being liers, wrong, unpredictable, and so on.

mountainman

I think you've answered your own question with the final sentence.
There is obviously a great deal of technological improvement in the
methods, devices, computational power and analytical tools related
to modern science. These have a flow on effect into many disciplines
and history is one of them, since it relies on a vast underpinning of
citations from many disciplines.

You asked for differences between history and science, and IMO
while the modus operandi, formulation of theories, including the
provision for objectivity and (Popperian) falsifiability are the same,
even their predictive nature, their domains of enquiry are different.

Maxwell wrote:

Article 1 - Nature of Physical Science

Physical Science is that department of knowledge which relates to the order of nature, or in other words, to the regular succession of events.

The name of physical science, however, is often applied in a more or less restricted manner to those brances of science in which the phenomena considered are of the simplest and most abstract kind, excluding the consideration of the more complex phenomena, such as those observed in living beings.

The domains of History, on the other hand, must necessarily include the different
tribes of mankind and their interaction with the world at large (as it is described
by the domains of science), and thus must be inclusive of living beings,
and their social, political, religious and possibly psychological environments.

Duck

Yes, the domains of history include living beings, but, clearly, this is not what distinguishes history from science. Biology is the science of living beings; and psychology, sociology and economics deal with human beings. These fields are not considered to be part of history.

History is about human activity but the key distinction seems to be temporal: History is the study of past human events. And we cannot observe past human events, but we can formulate ideas and theories based on what we know today.

Anyway, perhaps a specific example will help. Care to take a crack at my questions: Thanks.

mountainman

The further back the greater is the margin of error.
Ancient chronologies are compiled from assorted sources.
These chronologies are "theories of chronologies".
Evidence is usually tendered with respect to the theory.
Confidence levels are boosted by carbon dating citations.

(All this of course, in my opinion).

RAFH

Might be, was it important? Will it significantly affect tomorrow, next month, next year, next decade, next century, next millennium? Was it the result of some important events or trends? That's what history is, or at least the study of history. Its not everyday events, its important events that substantially shape subsequent events. Its trends, currents, flows of people, ideas, knowledge, power. Its a diagnosis of how we ended up where we are and perhaps a key to where we are going.

Again, might be, was it done to thermally prepare chicken ovum for consumption or as an experiment to test a hypothesis? The closer to the former, the less its science, the closer to the latter, the more its science.

Theoretically, not much. Practically, lots.
Theoretically history should be a science. Its the study of recent human events with the intention of determining what, if any, trends or 'laws' can be decyphered so one can better understand how we arrived at where we are and, hopefully, where we may be going.

Practically, history is an arcane art form heavily influenced and utilized by various agencies to justify behavior and action, shape opinions, control events. For much of its history, its been done very poorly with a lot of influence by religion and politics.

Again, theoretically, no, Practically, yes. See above.

Not fundamentally or inherently, per the above, history is and should be science. The only criteria for 'better' in science is does it reliably, accurately and effectively represent reality?

Then again, it depends on your definition of 'better', if you are trying to run some people you don't particularly like out of an area with rich resources so you can exploit those resources to your exclusive benefit, history that portrays those people as recent landgrabbing, dishonest, dirty, sick, horrible sub-humans might be 'better' than history that portrays them as the original indigenous inhabitants that have a very positive culture that is in sync with its environment.

Depends what you consider 'more useful'.

It's definitely history and if done properly, its a sister to archeology, which is a study of who and how, with a bit of why thrown in. History is more the critical flows of people, power, wealth, culture, ideas and knowledge. There's obviously a lot of overlap. Both are sciences, or should be. Egyptology is the specific science of studying the history and archeology of Ancient Egypt. Its a science too.

Duck

RAFH and mountainman, thanks for your posts. Your comments are helpful.