How valid?

"In other studies you go as far as others have gone before you and there is nothing more to know; but in a scientific pursuit there is continual food for discovery and wonder" (pg 57).

I came across this passage whilst reading and found myself slightly miffed. As a history major, I find my field to be just as valid as science. No, it's not as "logical" as science in that algorithms aren't involved, but there is definitely still "continual food for discovery and wonder". History is made up of stories. Stories come from people, and people make up our history. Thus our history is the constant story of humanity, continually being written by each member of the human race. There is always more to discover. Saying that one can only study the past in all other areas of study is not correct. I can look at the Cold War, and use that to explain to you how the crisis in Syria will play out.

Using English as a field of reference; yes we use a dialect that originated from Middle English, but we use it to constantly create NEW works of literature that are revolutionary and that help in the constant work to define the human condition. The problem that I have with the book Frankenstein is that it very much focuses on the physical, logical, one dimension side of things, as opposed to the physical combines with the id. And when it comes to human psyche there's so much changing, and so much constantly to discover and wonder about.