). On the other hand, it is not enough for we, front to the challenge, to describe and only to explain the especificidades and the dissonncias represented for the challenging conceptions as a reasonable reply. We have also a epistemolgico problem to be faced here. It must be examined, first, which are the instruments theoretician-metodolgicos of whom if it used for the determination of the cientificidade of History. If also we call science the addition of the available scientific knowledge in data moment, can also affirm that it has a proper content and method for establishment of the facts.

The scientific method is that it goes to determine the ways to get such knowledge, and the characteristics of this knowledge is to be true. Which the border that separates the History of science, if History has proper method, searchs the truth, not it absolute and perpetual truth, but that it can be argued? Science is the part of the knowledge that uses rational methods and that it searchs evidence experimental, looking for to see to the reality as it is. HAYDEW WRITE tells that History is a literary art of lesser value, therefore is not a science. However, LUCIEN FEBVRE and MARC BLOCH, affirm that History is a science human being who works the possible truths of another look, with proper methods and objectives, uses rational methods that search the logic to prove what it speaks. The concept that if became very used in the academy of that History is a science that studies the man and the societies human beings in the time, today already can is needing a complement or a magnifying, has seen that as many ways exist that they are used by the historians for the historical research, therefore the man are involved in some contexts of the action and the experience 3 human being.