Epistemological Convergence between Science and History

I remember I heard people talked about politics.  As the conversation goes by, there was a word uttered by a guy, which I heard so well;  "History is subjective, written by the ruling class who has the power". To my astonishment, not just this guy but often I heard this statement elsewhere, in many other occasion, with many other variations as well, "History is written by the victors"; History is written by the winners and so on. This statement often bring us to a very subtle conclusion that History is a subjective enterprise. This Idea of history is quite prevalent, even today. Alun Munslow in his book The future of History mentioned, "History itself might be construed as danger  precisely because it is a fundamentally subjective and ironic fabrication-and imagined-inventio."

      Comparatively speaking, science has a better status quo as many would agree. In this digital era, people are more easily see science as a better subject or even the best. Those who does not believe in science, will be labelled as pessimist for science is a Grand Unified theory that could explain everything.Apparently, as we all know, science and history are different because science deal with present and future more frequently, whereas history definitely deals with things of the past. Nevertheless, having says that, it does not mean there is no convergence between them at all. I argue that although in outset of the subjects they are quite different, there is a clear convergence in both subjects, base on their epistemological framework and foundation. That is to say, both history and science tries to established something we called as objective. Of course, objective here, cannot be taken as 100% depicting reality because it is impossible to gain such knowledge. This idea of epistemology of thing as truly is as Desecrates proposed cannot be hold because the observer always has a lens from which, they come to observe the thing. Even scientist cannot hinder this fact as Collingwood a British philosophers says in regards to scientific inquiry of scientist;

"To live the life of  a scientist consists in the understanding  of the world around one terms of one's science. To be geologist is to look at the landscape geologically. To be a physiologist is to look at organism physiologically..." 

       To find something as truly is is opaque, for everyone come with the nuance of their own intuition and background, interpret things accordingly to that mechanism. Both science and History are not dealing with objective, in the sense of things as "truly are" but in the other notion of epistemology. The other notion of epistemological framework which deal with the idea of objective is in the sense of making justice of the essence of things, with the consensus of the best explanatory data at the moment. And they are open for future revision always (verification & falsification). This is where the convergence happened. Science and History is dealing with data and evidences, as they interpret data and make a firm conclusion using these three spectrum in the whole process: Coherency, Consistency & Context. In sum, Science and history are dealing with facts, the objective reality from the evidences that best explained the reality. It is true, that the writing of the history of the past might written badly, full of biased and myth, illusion and imagination, as they have not written using the more sophisticated rule and principles of writing a modern history (after 19th century).
       However, it is a flaw to say that because some of  the past historical writings are bad therefore, the subject of history itself is equally bad and subjective all together. In fact, responsible historian with a good historical method in play, can detect whether a piece of historical writings are making justice to depicts past events objectively as Leopold Von Ranke, a historian and the proponent of Source Theory (ST) best represents, "historians  had strive to present history How it really was".