(September 13, 2019 at 6:01 pm)Grandizer Wrote:(September 13, 2019 at 1:27 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: Why do you think that's the case? History doesn't resemble science in any way. Apart from a few exceptions, there are no experiments in history, there is no systematic observation in history, history rarely makes falsifiable predictions, it almost never applies mathematics... At best, you can say it's the softest of the soft sciences, aside from perhaps gender studies (and even that is questionable). Historical linguistics, such as my alternative interpretation of the Croatian toponyms can probably be called science, but history itself can't be.
Science and experimental research are not the same thing. Experiments are one means to do science.
Also nice dig at gender studies. Just so you know, gender studies have involved many experiments. And the conclusions have made sense.
What experiments? AFAIK, they do include some statistics, but they usually refuse to properly analyze them. You know, like the "gender pay gap", which disappears once you control for other factors.
