Epistemological Distinctions Between Science and History

TL;DR

This paper explores the fundamental epistemological differences between science and history, emphasizing science's reliance on repeatable experiments and history's focus on physical and testimonial evidence for understanding past events.

Contribution

It clarifies the distinct epistemological frameworks of science and history, highlighting the inherent objectivity of scientific models over historical theories.

Findings

Science uses repeatable experiments for testing models.

History relies on physical, documentary, and eyewitness evidence.

Scientific models are more objective and testable than historical theories.

Abstract

This article describes epistemological distinctions between science and history. Science investigates models of natural law using repeatable experiments as the ultimate arbiter. In contrast, history investigates past events by considering physical evidence, documentary evidence, and eyewitness testimony. Because questions of natural law are repeatably testable by any audience that exercises due experimental care, models of natural law are inherently more objective and testable with greater certainty than theories of past events.