History: Science, Humanity, or Something Else?

While no one would confuse Momma Goldberg’s of Auburn as a wellspring of erudition, it was there, last night, while consuming drink and breaking bread (or, rather, cheap nachos) with the graduate cohort that I had a bit of inspiration for my first post to this blog.  The issue was one that I think dogs most historians:  is history a science, or is it one of the humanities?  This type of existential question is one that I think is important for us, as professionals, to consider.  After our conversation, it was brought to my attention that Ken Owen has written on this matter at The Junto in reaction to Eric Herschthal’s piece comparing popular history and popular science for Slate.  While I agree with the general thrust of Owen’s argument, on the question of history’s relationship to the sciences, I would like to suggest that the relationship might not be as cut and dry as Owen seems to suggest.  Specifically, history – or, academic history - is scientific, even if it is not considered one of the sciences in the sense that chemistry or biology is.