Is Historiography a Science?

The question of whether history is a science has been a topic of discussion mainly since the nineteenth century, when history emerged as an autonomous academic discipline. The question takes for granted that we know what science is and seeks to determine whether history can be placed alongside disciplines that are already recognized as scientific. It also carries the implicit assumption that being classified as a science is desirable, since the label is supposed to confer prestige and epistemic legitimacy on the discipline to which it is applied. The conclusion of such discussions is frequently negative: history is found wanting. In response, some advocate for reforming historical practice to align it more closely with what science is supposed to be, while others are satisfied with history’s distinct character. Drawing on insights from the History of Science, I will show that the term 'science' signifies a diverse range of practices, which implies that there is no single standard against which history can be compared. I will argue that contemporary theorists of history often compare historiography to an ideological and outdated conception of science and draw misleading contrasts. I will contend that historiography is not a self-contained pure discipline, but rather an absorptive one (Megill) as it appropriates and assimilates methods, concepts, and frameworks from other fields in ways that transform it. I will also discuss certain features that are often thought to preclude history from qualifying as scientific in the manner of the natural sciences (for instance, the use of figurative rather than literal language, the presence of value judgments in historical narratives, the lack of neutrality and detachment), and show that these features are not significantly different from those that characterize the practice of the natural sciences. Finally, I will consider whether history can be regarded as a social science.