This statement is true but it has its exceptions, since both areas of knowledge contribute to understanding the past in order to create the future; proof is the essence of both fields. History has clearly become a field of monumental importance. History is just a compilation of remaining evidence. Historians have transformed history into something acceptable to dominant values. This degradation of knowledge also manifests itself in the human and natural sciences. This quote is examined and it is evident that history and science change, first distorting facts in order to shape them into conventional opinion, and slowly changing as society evolves. It is important to keep in mind that there are at least grains of truth in almost every historical account or scientific advance. History is not the past, history is constantly updated and depends on the breadth of perspective from which it is studied. . Try to imagine what it would be like to live in a society where there was absolutely no knowledge of the past. Everything written is based on past evidence. Differences in historical interpretations can also be influenced by contextual changes over time. It can be said that we are capable of looking back on events and reevaluating them objectively. As Reuben Abel said: “History is far from being exclusively scientific or factual; it is also largely creative... The historian, like the novelist, tells a story..." (174). Each historian gathers concrete bodies of evidence, such as primary sources written by knowledgeable people of the time. Each historian constructs a theory linking the documents to the events believed to have occurred. I have seen first-hand the generations and their differences influence...... middle of paper ...... throughout the reasoning and decision-making process. Without any decisions made in history, none of the events could have been recorded. There are different ways of reasoning; for example, when it comes to history, the way Western textbooks reason about the colonization of Africa and the way African textbooks reason about colonization would be different. In Western textbooks, this would mainly explain how Western colonies came to Africa to civilize and help develop the country. However, African textbooks would probably explain how Westerners invaded their lands and imposed intensive labor on African citizens. Most cases have this reasoning problem in telling the story and claiming something to be true because it cannot be proven false. Both countries can be seen as using double standards to excuse or support their own nations...