My friend and I got into a conversation recently about validity of historiography and history in general. In it, he asserted that any judgements, any assertions, any interpretations of the past could not be called historical.
As his understanding went, a key principle of our studies and writings of history is to strive to be as absolutely objective as possible. Yet no work of history could certainly be called that, having been viewed, analysed and evaluated through the bias of our human experience. When I counter argued that all historians knew that and thus strove to either minimize their bias or ,failing that, to make it apparent and clear, he argued thus that since no work could meet that principle of history, no work, no interpretation of the past could be called historical in the true sense.
Rather, any interpretations, in his own words, would thus have to fall back on either psychology, if it was about people, or sociology, if it was about groups, organisations of societies at large. While I wanted to disagree, I realised that I didn't have the deep knowledge of the concepts of historiography to refute him.
So then, Askhistorians, what is historiography in the first place. How would we interpret the past in such a way that we cannot say it is any other discipline of the humanities but us?
First, congratulate your friend on discovering postmodernism.
Second, he's right. Any attempt at history will be imperfect. A true recreation of history, after all, would take as long as the original event, and still be subject to perspective bias.
Third, he's wrong. Psychology and sociology are specific lenses which are used to interpret human behavior. They detect the repetition of patterns and make assumptions about future events based on those patterns. Historians, as you say, attempt to relate as accurate a picture of the past as they can while making their own biases as clear as possible, with the understanding that history will have to be rewritten as perspectives change. History, unlike the other social sciences, is not predicative.
I'm reminded of the old story of the mathematician and the engineer, who are told by a king that the first person to reach his daughter can marry her, but they can only move according to the formula set out by Zeno's Paradox: they can only move halfway to her each time. The mathematician throws up his hands and walks out of the room, muttering that people shouldn't take up his time with impossible tasks. The engineer looks at the king, grins, and says, "Well, I think I can get close enough for all intents and purposes."
Tell your friend not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.