Well, no, they’re historians. You don’t need to be a scientist to prize evidence based thinking but you do need to be investigating natural phenomena through a system based on scientific methodology to be a scientist.
You could stretch that out and point out that everything is natural but then you’re dealing with anthropology which is different than being a historian because they use different means of determining fact.
This may be a language barrier. In my native language a historian is a scientist researching history. But maybe I just don’t understand what you want to say.
It’s somewhat complicated. “Scientist” can have a very specific definition where only “hard science” (Physics, Chemistry, etc.) qualifies. Personally, I think that definition is too narrow, is usually used to disparage fields where it’s impossible to apply strict experimental techniques, and often privileges areas of study that just happen to be male-dominated.
How do you even run an experiment in history? Since you basically can’t, is that a reason to invalidate everything the field does? The way a lot of people talk, it almost seems like it, but it’s completely absurd.
Just wanted to tell you it even differs in different languages. I know where you are going though. However regarding this post, at least where I come from you can get a university degree in History. If you want to call that science or not, “good” is no legitimate assessment in any discipline.
Because they are scientists
Well, no, they’re historians. You don’t need to be a scientist to prize evidence based thinking but you do need to be investigating natural phenomena through a system based on scientific methodology to be a scientist.
You could stretch that out and point out that everything is natural but then you’re dealing with anthropology which is different than being a historian because they use different means of determining fact.
This may be a language barrier. In my native language a historian is a scientist researching history. But maybe I just don’t understand what you want to say.
It’s somewhat complicated. “Scientist” can have a very specific definition where only “hard science” (Physics, Chemistry, etc.) qualifies. Personally, I think that definition is too narrow, is usually used to disparage fields where it’s impossible to apply strict experimental techniques, and often privileges areas of study that just happen to be male-dominated.
How do you even run an experiment in history? Since you basically can’t, is that a reason to invalidate everything the field does? The way a lot of people talk, it almost seems like it, but it’s completely absurd.
Just wanted to tell you it even differs in different languages. I know where you are going though. However regarding this post, at least where I come from you can get a university degree in History. If you want to call that science or not, “good” is no legitimate assessment in any discipline.