The statement is true but has its exceptions, as both areas of knowledge contribute to understanding the past to create the future; evidence is the essence of both fields. The story has clearly developed in an area of ​​monumental importance. History is simply a collection of evidence left behind. Historians transform history into something acceptable according to traditional values. This degradation of knowledge is also evident in the human and natural sciences. You examine this quote and it is evident that both history and science change, first by distorting facts to shape them into conventional wisdom, and slowly change as society changes. It is important to keep in mind that there are at least grains of truth in almost every historical account or scientific discovery. History is not the past, history is constantly updated and depends on the scope of the perspective from which it is studied. . Try to imagine what it would be like to live in a society where there was absolutely no knowledge of the past. Everything written is based on past evidence. Differences in historical interpretations can also be influenced by contextual changes over time. It can be argued that we are able to look back at events and reevaluate them objectively. As Reuben Abel stated, "History is far from being exclusively scientific or factual; it is also largely creative... The historian, like the novelist, tells a story..." (174). Each historian assembles sets of concrete evidence, such as primary sources written by relevant people of the time. Every historian assembles a theory that connects the documents to the events that supposedly occurred. I have seen firsthand generations and their differences influence… the medium of paper… accomplished through the process of reasoning and decision making. Without the decisions made in the story, none of the events would have been recorded. There are different ways of thinking; for example, in relation to history, the way Western textbooks think about the colonization of Africa and the way African textbooks think about colonization would be different. In Western textbooks it would mostly explain how Western colonies came to Africa to civilize and help the country develop. However, African textbooks would likely explain how Westerners invaded their land and imposed intensive labor on African citizens. Most cases with this problem of reasoning to tell the story and assert that something is true because it cannot be disproved. It can be observed that both countries use double standards to excuse or support their nations.