The modern definition of science could be stated that it is
a systematic study of the natural world through the scientific method. This means creating a hypothesis and testing
it to determine the extent to which it can explain measurement results. A common notion is that science facts are
truth but in reality, not everybody in society (or even science) really agrees
about the meaning of truth. As a matter
of observation, it should be said that it does not matter whether you believe
gravity is real or agree with the laws of thermodynamics or electrodynamics. In science, these will be true whether you
agree with them or not, they will be true whether you know about them or
not. A similar perspective could be
applied to historical events.
Many people believe that truth is relative, that truth is
different for different people, that it depends on how you see things. Others see truth as objective, that the truth
does not depend on us or our perspective.
There is little doubt that many people will disagree with many others
about the nature of truth but in science, truth is determined by measurement
and observation. The measurement is
considered truth and the models we use to account for observations are
considered scientific to the extent that they can explain measurements.
All science "facts" are really just measurement
results which can be explained using some form of physical, natural, mechanical
models. One often overlooked aspect of science, truth and fact comes in the
realm of basic history where archaeology can play a very important role. I invite you to consider how you can know
anything you think happened in history to be actual real events which have
occurred. In a laboratory, the scientist
is often present from the beginning of the experiment to the end and so is able
to attest to all history relevant to the experiment and its results. Events more general such as something last year,
last decade, last century, millennium or whatever, how can anyone know whether any
historical event had actually occurred?
How can anyone for that matter know what truly happened at any time in history
that they had not directly witnessed?
Socrates, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Napoleon, King
George, Shakespeare or even Abraham Lincoln, how can we know? A legal argument would basically require only
the documented account of two or more witnesses, this generally suffices to
establish the truth of most modern historical occurrences. What tends to be even more convincing and
perhaps the very final say in any matter of historical fact is whether forensic
measurements agree with the witnesses. Archaeology
is a very powerful tool and when applied to historical investigating and can be
rather conclusive. This is not to say
that scientists or witnesses can never be wrong but regarding what we or
historians accept as historical fact is worth considering from a scientific
perspective.
Can a history book written today give an accurate account of
early colonial America, how about further back, and if so, how far back? Most scientists would agree that if early
documentation of historical events are available and that they agree with what
can be verified through archaeology, then this establishes a reliable historical
record. Whether these are hieroglyphs, cuneiform
tablets, papyri, simple paper or other written documents, if these give
accounts of cities, prominent rulers and titles and cultural practices which
can be corroborated with actual ruins and ancient burial findings, this is
sufficient.
Whether the history in question is North America, ancient
Egypt, Greece, China, India or even the bible, written witness accounts
corroborated with the archaeological record is generally sufficient for the
scientific method to arrive at a conclusion of historical fact. The entire field of modern forensics and
archaeology have helped us to corroborate a litany of historical events all over
the world and throughout the entire record of civilization. Hats off to those using the scientific method
in order to establish the validity of historical events.
