Scientists (that takes in a lot of territory) tend to strike out on the issue of history, although historians have their own confusions.
The problem is the reductionist and unthinking way the idea of science is applied. But every such attempt fails because of the factor of free agency. Free agents confronting a scientific law have option to contradict it, as falsification.
Now the question has reached Quantum Mechanics. Much nonsense is written on this subject, but as things stand now physics can’t apply causality (naively) as in the past to their own subject. QM makes no sense, and that makes dogma about history close to silly.n Free agency sneaks into physics via the potential to experiment and its relation to the theory. And spooky physics stands close to a kind of kantian noumenal aspect. This statements are potshots, and don’t presume to resolve physics for subjective history. But the point is simply that the kind of kneejerk insistence that history is reducible to physics is a bit of a joke now, if physicists can’t even figure out their own subject and confront string theory for still more comic episodes.
The issue of history here is based on the empirical facts of the ‘eonic effect’. The ‘science’ of history, if there is one, would have to explain the eonic effect. Over and out.
Historians believe that the past is irreducibly complex and the future wildly unpredictable. Scientists disagree. Who’s right?