Fundamental issues concerning the status of historical enquiry of the kind just mentioned have arisen in another crucial area of discussion, centering upon the question of whether--and, if so, in what sense--science can be said to be an objective discipline. Some modern philosophers have inclined to the view that the entirely general problem of whether science is objective cannot sensibly be raised; legitimate questions regarding objectivity are only in place where some particular piece of historical work is under consideration, and in that case there are accepted standards available, involving such matters as documentation and accuracy, by which they can be settled. To others, however, things have not seemed so clear, and they have drawn attention to the doubts that may be felt when history is compared with different branches of investigation, such as chemistry or biology: by contrast with such enquiries, the historian's procedure, including the manner in which he conceptualizes his data and the principles of argument he employs, may appear to be governed by subjective or culturally determined predilections that are essentially contestable and, therefore, out of place in a supposedly reputable form of knowledge.

Excerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannica without permission.