History better than science?

History as a concept, not as a formal area of
academic pursuit; is it better than science?
Think of it this way:
If you know HOW things work, you're not going
to be fooled by wild claims. And when it comes
to humanity, the past is our model for the
future.
The present is too close to us. Or we're too
close to it. And all the pieces haven't quite
fallen into play just yet.
Example:  If you looked at Truman in his final
months in office, you saw a terrible man doing
a terrible job. But if we look back on Truman
today, he was one of the greatest Presidents
that the United States ever had.
Two very different perspectives.
The topic of pseudo science came up recently,
and ultimately the issue with pseudo science
is NOT that people lack official credentials,
it's that they lack a knowledge/understanding
of how things work.
So, history?
Take the Great Pyramids of Egypt, for example.
If you know history then you know that the
ancient Egyptians began their monumental tomb
constructions with something called a Mastaba.
Kinda just this square, or a rectangle, to be
more accurate, and they were made of mud
brick.
Switch from building things out of mud brick
to building them out of stone and, omg! Now
you have stone structures!
The first kinda pyramid, the step pyramid, was
really just a bunch of stone mastabas piled on
top of each other.
And then they got the idea of smoothing out the
sides, making a real pyramid!
But they failed.
So they tried. And they failed again.
So they tried a third time and, yes, it worked!
Once you grasp all this, is it possible to
believe the pyramids were built by aliens?
Aliens couldn't get it right the first try?
Aliens couldn't even get it right the second try?
In fact, the aliens didn't even dare try until
they first underwent a lengthy evolutionary
process beginning with mud brick?
History. Learn a little and the pseudo science is
gone.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5