Originally Posted by valenzuela
I think history cant be objective for two reasons, first of all the subject of study is a subjective choice and second the sources chosen to study the subject are also going to be subjective so the claim that there is an "objective" history is pure bull****.
I wonder what you guys think?
The first argument applies to all scientific fields and is a complete non-issue.
The second merely reflects that historical claims have a lot of uncertainty attached to them, more so than claims in other fields of inquiry. Historians simply don't have the data to support their claims as well as empirical scientists can, which means that there's a lot more room for interpretation. As long as the methodology applied to what limited data they have conforms to the logic of evidence, however, history is our best gues wrt things that happened and there's nothing subjective about it that does't also affect other fields.
I think the tentative nature of historical knowledge should be stressed, though.