• gigachad@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      20 hours ago

      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.

      • gigachad@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        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.