Relationship between science and history ?
Answers
While separate and indeed very different, science and history nonetheless overlap in a number of ways, as do most human intellectual pursuits.
As stated by my fellow answerer (←definitely not a word) Rodney Price, the process by which they occur is very different, and given that science is essentially a process, then they are as subjects very separate.
That is not to say, however, that there is no overlap between science and history.
For the purposes of this question, let’s assume the following definitions are true (I think they’re pretty fair)
History: ‘the study of the progress of the world across time.’
Often we focus on the more anthropological side of history, which might reasonably be defined as ‘the study of human progress in a given area across time.’
As stated by Price, history involves examining past documents and other surviving evidence to prove facts.
Science: ‘the process of acquiring knowledge by the scientific method’
ie. making hypotheses, then investigating them and gathering empirical evidence to make a conclusion, all from a rigorously skeptical viewpoint.
As I’ve defined it, history is pretty broad, but there isn’t really a simple definition: some argue that it’s merely about examining documents, some that it is about establishing cause and effect for everything that has ever happened in the past, by whatever means possible - I hope my definition provides a vague but reasonable middle ground.
By their definitions, then, you can already see some relation between science and history: in fact, the Ancient Greek root of the word ‘history,’ ‘historia’ literally translates as ‘ knowledge acquired by investigation’ - which is basically the same thing as science.
But anyway, I digress. Are they related?
Well, if history is taken to mean the study of progress over time, especially the progress of humanity, and science the process of acquiring knowledge by the scientific method, then yes.
If history is the study of human progress, then I would argue that scientific questioning is a key driver of this progress. Without the process of science, and the development it entails, humanity would not have progressed to be where it is today - we would not even be in a position to study history. At the same time, without a historical understanding of the past and how we have come to be where we are, science would be much less effective, as scientists would not have access to the ideas of Archimedes, Ptolemey, Newton or Galileo, regardless of whether these ideas are right or wrong.
In this way, history and science are interdependent and highly related.
There are also combinations of the two fields:
There is such a thing as a history of science, which is what I’ve just touched on above.
There is also a science of history, although it’s much less well-known. Historiography is, to quote wikipedia: “the study of the methods of historians in developing history as an academic discipline” - essentially, a study of how different historic events have been represented and how this has changed across time, as well as the methods used in establishing historic ideas.
Archaeology counts as well, I guess. Perhaps it could be said that historiography is the theoretical study of history, whereas archaeology is the practical application of science in a historical context.
Anyway, that’s my two cents worth. I’ve taken this question as more about the general ideas of science and history, not the actual processes, so I could have misconstrued it. Regardless, both in theory and in practise, science and history are two crucially important and very interesting pursuits - this is probably the most important parallel of all.
EDIT: In his answer, Rodney Price raised the point that while scientific disputes are often resolved by new data, historical disputes can persist. This is great, and highlights the differences between the two processes.
I would like to add, however, that while new data can resolve scientific disputes, new scientific technologies and methods can also help solve historic disputes, such as radiocarbon dating when discussing the age of an artefact. Another way that the two areas combine.