By his logic a lot of historical figures don't exist
And you're correct here. History is not something we can observe. That's why historical science deals with past events that were not directly observed, and observational science is true science and can be trusted, whereas historical science is, at best, weak and highly unreliable.
Historians use observation and analysis of historical data to make logical conclusions based on the clues left behind by past events. They also use comparison with realistic experiences and they use repeatable uncontrolled experiments. Historiography is the study of historical writing. It involves critically examining sources, selecting specific details from authentic materials, and synthesizing them into a narrative that withstands critical analysis.
And you're correct here. History is not something we can observe. That's why historical science deals with past events that were not directly observed, and observational science is true science and can be trusted, whereas historical science is, at best, weak and highly unreliable.
Historians use observation and analysis of historical data to make logical conclusions based on the clues left behind by past events. They also use comparison with realistic experiences and they use repeatable uncontrolled experiments. Historiography is the study of historical writing. It involves critically examining sources, selecting specific details from authentic materials, and synthesizing them into a narrative that withstands critical analysis.