Ah, right. Well there is a difference. Much of history is extrapolation and supposition. No-one can go to such and such a date and say that X happened then. All there is to go on are the writings of others. The "fact" there is only that the writings exist. Compare, for example, the bible.

In science, however, one can, again for example, boil water and measure the temperature. One can carbon-date a bone within a certain range of statistical probability. One can see heritable differences between species. From there one may hypothesise a cause, and one may then devise an experiment - which could disprove the hypothesis.

It follows, then, that Keith has (should I say "as usual"?) presented an analogy that he ought to have known was a false analogy. If the explanation in the last few posts is accurate.