Post History

The scientific method is not the mainstay of historical research.

As a rule, history deals with events of the past. This is not just in the broad sense of them happening temporally in a past time, but in the narrow sense that they are by definition events that are inextricably grounded in their historical context and cannot happen again. Note, a very similar event happening again is not the same as the event itself happening again.

It is not uncommon to hear the opinion that an understanding of past events is relevant to understanding the present and future. But the identity of past events is always respected - even if an event repeats, the two occurrences are still distinct subjects of historical study.

For example, there cannot be another Julius Caesar. If a statesman and general of similar characteristics was born, and perhaps in a similar sociopolitical, technological and geographic context, and maybe he was also named Julius Caesar - it would still be a distinct person and no historian would claim that this is the same Caesar and thus studying one or the other is redundant. One could construct an argument that conclusions from studying the Caesar of 50 BC can also be applied to the Caesar of 3050 AD. This would probably be met with controversy among other historians. If one claimed that the study of Caesar in 3050 AD is relevant to the Caesar of 50 BC that would be met with even more controversy.

The scientific method rests on the assumptions of rationality, objectivity and empiricism. It is assumed that the subject (physics, chemistry, biology) conforms to logical and mathematical principles, and that experiments can be repeated without loss of meaningful information. An experiment I did today can be used directly to understand an observation I made yesterday, and few scientists would challenge such an approach on principle. Subjects of historical study cannot be readily reproduced, and they do not necessarily conform to logical laws.

With that, obviously history is not some collective fantasy. They rely heavily on logic, math, philosophy, social and natural science, etc. There are occasionally some matters that come up in historical study that are settled by experiment (["The vikings could not have sailed to America, it's impossible for a long ship to get that far!"](https://www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk/en/professions/education/method/the-archaeological-experiment/)). There are [routine scientific experiments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating) that form vital evidence for historical theory. And of course, historical researcher apply ample discipline to their reasoning about their domain.

However, the main method of history is not empirical study. Experimental validation is not necessary nor sufficient to produce a piece of historical knowledge. The main method of historical study is the examination of primary sources (including archeological artifacts).

Moreover, much historical study is subjective in practice. One could argue that all history is subjective due to various subjective proximity biases (bias towards own culture, own ideology, own values, own goals and interests) and objective biases (the kind of historical evidence available to you at that time). Beyond that, it is not uncommon for people to deliberately seek subjective conclusion about history, for a variety of reasons. This puts it at odds with science which inherently assumes the objectivity of the thing studied (ie. the laws of physics don't change according to who is looking).

In sum, if the question is "Is there any overlap whatsoever between history and science?" IMO it's a moot point that comes down to many trivial, hair-splitty things that ultimately don't matter and are boring. But on examination, there are obviously radical differences in the fundamental qualities of these two fields, and on reflection nothing useful or interesting is gained from attempting to represent them as being the same in any meaningful way. Therefore, I can't truly answer the question, but I am hoping to convince you that the similarities don't matter :)