@maxdancona,
Max says to Olivier5:
"@Olivier5,
I don't know what "history as a science" even means. History is not a set of testable facts. I am not sure this point is worth discussing."
See? Dear readers here, Max says he doesn't know what history as a science means, then he goes on to express an opinion which is silly about history as science.
When a person says he does not know something, then he should ask from better minds and better writers what they understand of a term/concept, like in the present instance, with history as science.
Now, I tell you guys what I know to be history as science, it means simply that when we read an account of something from a piece of what we see to be into history, which is in turn a writing to record events in the past, we must be scientific in approaching that kind of a writing, namely, history.
Now, what is it to be scientific in reading history?
In the present context science in reading history means that we must understand the piece of history writing with taking into account the understanding of society at the time of and in place of the event being written about, AND also the writer of the history who wrote in a later date and society on the event having occurred in still a much older time and clime, older to the history writer.
There, that is what we might call history as science, meaning read history scientifically, i.e. taking into account the time and clime of the events reported by the writer, who could be writing not in the time and place of the events, but already then living in a later time and in another place.
Dear Max, don't say you don't know something and then proceed to issue critical words on the something, that is being inconsistent and incoherent, which is the miserable standard of your thinking and writing.
When you want to criticize someone or something because you DO have some information at all, but you are not a master on the someone or something from long research on the someone or something, then issue at the very start the following statement:
"Please correct me, but I seem to have this thought etc."
That is what I always tell atheists, and they always run away, because they don't have either anything better than my thought, on an issue.
For example, I tell atheists like one Max, tell me what is your comment on my statement: "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence," for I honestly and sincerely care to learn from you - see, dear readers how they react, atheists in particular because they move about with so much self-smugness, they become dumb, or they run away to nurse their evasiveness, which is what I call with a good correct ad hominem, their “Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome."
An ad hominem is actually a tool to get people to think on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence, by appeal to the sense of shame.
Think about that!
In fact, that is the sorry status of posters in a web forum, they all talk with the unspoken conspiracy not to require each other to explain themselves according to truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.
