So I’m aware of past attempts to make history a science, to provide quantitative predictable theories, but they’ve never become particularly popular. In recent years, I’ve seen more and more mentions of mathematical or computational approaches to history (“M/CAtH”), these however being adopted much slower than in say sociology or economics.
My question is whether, as historians, you you that the study of history would be significantly benefited by M/CAtH (these being M/C models of the mechanisms and the behaviour rather than just stats or economic data), or is history a fundamentally qualitative field?
Links:
A) http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.03433
B) http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamics/
C) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliodynamics
D) http://cliodynamics.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=133&Itemid=70
E) https://www.nature.com/news/human-cycles-history-as-science-1.11078
F) http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamics/why-do-we-need-mathematical-history/
My 0.02:
While we are waiting, I might point you to THIS EPISODE of the AskHistorians podcast that discusses using quantitative "social network analysis" to gain insight into the Salem witch trials.