I'd say that history as an academic discipline is slowely coming into it's own through it's interaction with related disciplines. It's not being defined by philosophy, sociology or anthropology. Through careful interdisciplinary research, these academic disciplines are working together and improving their own methods. While it's true that post-modernism added some bumps to the road, I think that's was to be expected. It ultimately forced historians to take a more rigorous look at their methods, tools and even their own frame of mind. I'd argue that the increasing importance given to historiography in contemporary history is largely thanks to post-modern arguments. What you describe sounds a lot like historical relativism, which was a direct result of post-modernist theories, and theoretical historians have been working hard to get past that. With great success so far, if you were to ask me.

Recognizing that writing history is a subjective process and urging historians to be wary of their own personal frame of mind, isn't exactly synonymous with forgoing all claim to objectivity or denying the existence of 'facts'. For example, when Patrick Joyce scrutinizes the approach where employed methods and terminologies are instilled with a deterministic nature or an objective value, he isn't asking historians to do the opposite and to give in to chaos. All he asks of his fellow historians is that they employ a high degree of reflexivity and meta criticism. What you are describing in your comment is basically what happened with the Holocaust Denial in historiography. Unfortunatly, many history educations aren't very preoccupied with historiography and might be lagging behind. So it's a great question. Still, I think it's safe to say that most historians have been able to overcome that hurdle roughly ten to fifteen years ago. Wether be it by appealing to increased reflexivity or "Internal Realism", the solutions presented are many.

Do you feel like the role of history as a proper science (and therefore historians as "scientists," for lack of a better term) has been lessened?

this is sort of a separate question, so I'll answer it as such. I don't think it has changed much. As always, everyone thinks they can be a historian. Popular opinion of history is still very much stuck on the perception of history as a list of dates and names. They have no knowledge of proper historical practice or methods and they think that it's just about telling a story. I doubt that will change anytime soon. It's very telling of our day and age, but I don't think that cultural sciences will be looked upon without scepticism anytime soon. That being said, I think we have some great minds in various branches of the cultural and social sciences working together to improve their respective fields. So as far as I'm concerned, history as a scientific discipline is doing great.

If you are interested in more, here are some of the sources I used. I could give you more titles on the subject if you so desire.

Sources:

• Patrick Finney, Ethics, Historical Relativism and Holocaust Denial
• Patrick Joyce, The End of Social History?
• Chris Lorenz, Historical knowledge and Historical Reality: A Plea for 'Internal Realism'

I'm not going to engage with the first three questions you asked; I'm not really one for grand theoreticals of historiography and much prefer getting down to the 'dirty work' of history (I also have no desire to relive my compulsory undergraduate debate models shudders). I will, however, offer my thoughts on your last question - which may be a bit rambly and incoherent, owing to my internet disconnecting a dozen times whilst trying to write this!

With sincere respect, one of the serious issues I have with the premise of your post is that it is assumes all academic pursuits must be fundamentally scientific - in the sense that they must follow something akin to the scientific method, and following that method must reveal an objective truth if applied properly and rigorously - for them to have worth. I really don't think that's the case at all. I find it difficult to imagine how, say, English Literature or Theology could be considered particularly scientific pursuits, yet the contributions scholars in those fields have made to the intellectual, cultural and social fabric of our society has been immense.

In terms of whether history is a science, I would struggle to say that it is - but I would not go so far as to say that it is unscientific, either. Whilst I am slightly inclined to the post-modernist contention that it is never possible to know the completely, absolute, objective truth of the past, that does not mean that we as historians cannot develop a meaningful, worthwhile approximation of that truth. Put simply, there is an objective truth to be discovered; that is difficult to refute. Whether we can ever discover it or not is a very different question - but certainly if that truth exists, then we can at least construct a version of events that closely reflects the reality, even if imperfectly.

It is through the rigorous application of the historical method that we strive to construct that version, and we should always have in mind a responsibility to try and reconstruct the past as faithfully as possible, based on the evidence we have available to us. Dissent and debate are an important part of that process, just as they are in the natural sciences or in any other academic field; it is through considering defences and justifications for conflicting interpretations of the source material, and by constantly seeking out new material, that we can reach a meaningful consensus on a topic. Usually, when there is a shift in consensus it is because new evidence has come to light and been accepted by the historical community, not simply because we wish to make (a quite literal) name for ourselves in the history books. Indeed, a lot of the most innovative and exciting work in many fields of history is not work that seeks to challenge existing norms but work which opens up entirely new avenues of inquiry, or revisits questions that have not been addressed in a very long time.

In terms of our interaction with other disciplines, I think that this has enormously strengthened, not weakened, history as an academic pursuit. Whilst the lines do sometimes become blurred, it is certainly not the case that historians are becoming sociologists or economists or philosophers - but by engaging with those disciplines, we are able to develop a much more rigorous account of the past. If these disciplines have applications in the modern world, then they certainly are useful in helping us to understand the source material we encounter and its implications - but our method ultimately remains the historical one. If anything, engaging with these disciplines has helped ours - and theirs - to mature and develop a higher standard of scholarship.

Popular history is, I think, a beast of quite a different kind to academic history. Some of it is very good, most of it is decidedly mediocre, and a great deal of it is very, very bad. Too few people in my experience appreciate proper historical practice and think of history very much as a factual narrative; something anyone could put together if they had the time. It can sometimes lead others to question the validity of our pursuit and lend credence to works that really do not deserve such. I have read too many popular history pieces that remind me of first year undergraduate essays - and not always strong ones! Regardless of perceptions though, and regardless of what gets published masquerading as rigorous history, academic history - including that produced by those 'amateur' historians who have a rigorous grasp of their subjects - is stronger than ever in my opinion.

Finally, I would have to say that I always found the extreme subjectivist notion that history is not worth time and effort because it cannot find objective truth very odd. The past has happened, and it has had a profound impact on our lives, one that is worth understanding. If it is not possible to know the objective details of the past, then surely that makes history very important in a different way - as the only way in which we can possibly understand who and what came before us. Even if those understandings are completely subjective and have no objective merit, they are surely still valuable to us as individuals, communities and society.

not really an answer to your question but historiography does explicitly fall within the subrules so your fine in asking it.