> I'm saying that Copernicus wrote _de revolutionibus_ in 1543 and its contents were globally accepted not before around the 1700s. That's because the telesco

> I'm saying that Copernicus wrote _de revolutionibus_ in 1543 and its contents were globally accepted not before around the 1700s. That's because the telescope hadn't even been invented yet. And no scientific evidence could be gathered, no hypothesis could be tested, etc. The discovery of the telescope and the ability to find other planets and track their orbits is what ultimately undid heliocentrism. Not consensus. > So anyone in that timeframe were looking at the state of science with their best mind and rightfully questioned "who's right? Geocentrism or heliocentrism?". And there were debates. Yes. But what separates humanities from science is the debate gets settled by empirical evidence. Otherwise we'd debate forever and it'll be a matter of consensus. > Just as general relativity made consensus year after year, if you want a modern example. Because of the observed evidence. Not consensus. There seems to be a confusion here. In humanities, the consensus makes the theory. In science, the evidence makes the consensus. A group of nazi historians will say the US was the bad guys and germany was the good guys. A group of US historians will say the US was the good guy and germany was the bad guy. The narrative/"truth"/history entirely depends on consensus. Who is voting. That's not how science works. The experiment/data is what's important and the consensus follows from it. Doesn't matter who is voting. Since you believe history is science, then historians are scientists?