A critical look at historical science, an explanation of its disadvantages.
Many people are interested in the events of the past. History by textbooks can really surprise with details, their originality in each book. If we start from the definition that history is a science. But scientific history is very much affected due to many reasons. This discipline can not be objective; history is always subjective. Every historian is trying to interpret all the events of the past differently based on his/her life beliefs. You can take one fact, one date, one event but to see a completely different interpretation. If for a moment forget that this is one event, you can think that it describes the different not related to each other events. It is certainly disappointing.
The history is based on some data, which in turn can also be subjective and so on. For example, some archaeological excavations were made, archaeologists found the remains of an ancient culture (dishes, clothing remnants, tools) but no one knows exactly who it was. Historians bring their hypothesis and believe it to be true. And probably some kind of hypothesis will get into the school-book, and perhaps each of them, here's a great example of the inconsistencies. Historians use archival documents, which in turn could have been written by the same historians usually find in the archives of different data interpretation of the past. Each of them can get in your school-book, unfortunately, too political people will perceive the beneficial facts (which are not proven and will not be proven) for the unshakable truth.
The history is good and reliable regulator of society to gain power in any country. All countries skillfully juggle historical data, and at the right moment change and correct historical data for their own benefit. This is very convenient tool of regulation of political attitudes. Each political power profitable to grow among ordinary people, patriots, in which case, they blindly defended it.
Overall, the history is not exactly science but completely deny it is pointless. It always should be skeptical treated and always check the sources. Skepticism needs to treat all the historical facts, which can have different interpretations. The story is impossible to verify, yet, unfortunately, not built a time machine, so you never should perceive anything on faith.
History is NOT a science.
Science operates on the Scientific Method.
1.Gather Data
History is merely a record, it's NOT science unless it can be falsified.
Congratulations @ignat! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!