History is Very subject to the bias of the recorder.....note how there is a movement towards "herstory" to correct some of these biased reportings.
Sort of like thinking DaVinci could make a painting depicting actual "last supper" events & their "hidden truths" 1600++ years after the supposed event. (Stupidest book/movie ever, "The DaVinci Code" ).

The social sciences would not be able to call themselves sciences if not for the "hard" sciences.

I can agree on that much.

History is written by the victors for the victors !!!

It is patriarcal "HIS" Story ???? it's bent as hell so far on the whole and people who study it tend to read between the lines don't they !!!

I think it is just as important as any other area of study.

I would say the study of history is a science, albeit a soft science rather than the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry and biology: we conduct research (and in some cases, even carry out experiments) and formulate conclusions and theories based upon it.

I agree with you completely. I grew up loving history and nearly did a degree in archeology and prehistory, but I opted instead for physics. But I maintain history taught me far more about critical thinking and evidenced based thinking than physics has. The two together give me great tools for doing science. I wholeheartedly agree the social sciences are as important as science and I really am annoyed when people suggest social sciences are unimportant.

I like that!!! My science brain is somewhat deficient. We can learn so much from history!

Science is not a platform; it's a razor.

Got you.

I agree with you, but as science advances it will help decode the past as well.

For the most part I am in agreement with you. I have an engineering background apart from my musical background. But I love history and ancient cultures and to me, getting to the truth is a combination of all disciplines from astrophysics to world history. I do not pay much attention to the gospels as they are a work of fiction. The best one is St Marks but subsequently they become more and more fantastic. It is like telling a story to someone. Then someone re-tells the story to someone else and so on.

Science is science, whether physical, biological, cehemical, or social science.It is the approach and the data derived that matter.

I should think that is largely dependent on what your definition of truth is. In all my days working in the sciences, I don't recall a single instance when what I was doing was pursuing "truth". "Truth" as far as I can tell, is foreign to science and irrelevant. It is a fact that when an apple leaves the tree, it falls toward the Earth. That is one of the definitions of the word "truth". The description of what is taking place during its fall is the science. That is to say, we observe something that to others is known as "truth", then we form a hypothesis in an effort to describe this "truth" and when the hypothesis has been tested and survives, we call it a theory. Nowhere in that process is the word "truth" ever used. The word fits nicely into philosophy.

What kind of truth are you looking for?