Here is a history lecture about Reinhold Niebur  .... [whom I sure don't remember!! How many people have an 'ei' in one name and 'ie' in the other??] No reason to read the article regading this post. Illusions of Managing History: The Enduring Relevance of Reinhold Niebuhr http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile.html One of his Niebur's main views is apparently the 'indecipherability of history' meaning what 'actually' happened in the past is usually not clear. I'm interested in any thoughts comparing the 'indecipherability of history' with a similar observation about, say the 'indecipherability" of say science .....say, physics. [If you want to rail against Neibur's other points please start your own discussion.] That sounds a lot like the situation in science to me! ....we have observables, outcomes, measurements, etc, but what is the underlying cause? How do we explain what 'actually' happened? Will different observers agree? One example would be the statistical evolution [which is 'indecipherable' regarding deterministic observables ] of the wave equation which results in deterministic outcomes...particles!! but with limits of 'locality'... limits on our abilty to measure. History has identifiable outcomes, too...Japan attacked Pearl Harbor; the US, Great Britain, Russia defeated the Axis powers; Alexander invaded Rome....not dispute there, but what is the explanation for the outcomes of those actions?? Historians have different views...just like quantum theory and general relativity offer differ insights regarding scientific phenomena....and like Feynman's 'sum over histories' provides different ideas about 'actuals'. Another example would be that whereas as Marxists and, say, western conservatives, and likely eastern philosophers, would almost always give different accounts of the same historical event, so too, do different observers in Einstein's relativity...based on different physical 'frames of reference' rather than political frames....they don't even agree on measures of space nor time.... How good is 'history' versus 'science' for predicting outcomes ? Mathematicians deal with proof. Physicists deal with evidence. Historians deal with?? Richard Feynman: "The truth always turns out to be simpler than you thought." ?? How about history? Wolfgang Pauli on hypothesizing the neutrino: I have created the ultimate sin, I have predicted the existence of a particle that can never be observed. [A historian gives an interpretation of the underlying causes of an historical event.??] Is any science 'settled'?? [as claimed, for example, by Al Gore] Is any history 'settled'??