'history must strive to be an art before it can strive to be a science' discuss

Question

a quote by Simon Schama

Answer 1

i believe that it is neither.  

Answer 2

History is an art, not a science.  Though history is studied, recorded, and analyzed, it does not fit into traditional sciences.  History is too open to interpretation to be a solid science.

Historians have resisted their field being classified as a science.  By using methods of pyschology and sociology, others have attempted to define the study of history into scientific terms, often missing key elements of the field of study.  Historians also dislike history being referred to as a social science, preferring the term social study.  

Though historians often look for trends in history, they do not believe in the cyclical theory of history that social scientist refer to. To quote two of my history professors: "History does not repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes," and "History does not repeat itself, but idiots often do."

Answer 3

history MUST strive,  that is, you have to start UNDERSTANDING history as an art( it may not be that)

the most complex of problems that science presents us with find their solution in art........thus the qoute

Answer 4

How can history be an art? History is the process of studying past events for recording and understanding. That sounds like science to me.

Answer 5

History should strive to be truth before it could be considered either. History has to be more than what has been made fact by the text books and the ideals of man who wanted to hide their iindiscretionsand to sugar coat their disloyalities and dishonesty.When history becomes truth than we can discuss what genre it should be classifed under. History at this time is wicked, It is twisted truth.

Answer 6

I am not sure that is correct, though i admire Simon Sharma  for his history programmes.  

Answer 7

History is an art and science of lying.  Those whose lie can survive the longest would be the better historians.  'History is what the victor has to say about the vanquished.'  It needs to be perfected as an art and maybe that attempt could strive to be a science.

Answer 8

history as art? i dont understand that

history can be scienctific and utilize science to support and verify evidence