The recognition of importance of event, its significance and its influence on the latest events is not trivial. As in other sciences, in the case of doubts, the hypothesis are formulated; these hypothesis should allow the verification and the refutation.
In TORI, the historical concepts are suposed to satisfy the same 6 axioms as all other sciences, see TORI axioms; the use of logical variabes and the logics is assumed, although yet not all the colleagues agree that the classical logics and the TORI axioms can be applied to history. The critics of application of the axioms in non-natural sciences are available in Russian in articles Философия Ю and Философия Галагана.
History in TORI
Then, these axioms happen to be efficient in the description of events in other sciences, including History. Several colleagues had expressed opinion, hypothesis, that the TORI axioms cannot be applied in history. In order to test this hypothesis (to verify it or to refute it), some articles about history are loaded in TORI.
The most doubtful are historic concepts related to history of Russia and USSR: many historic documents have been destroyed and/or altered by the Soviet veterans (Soviet fascists) in order to promote the soviet concept of history, Sovietism). For this reason, for TORI, the history of Russia is more important, than history of other countries (where the job can be done and seem to be done well) by the professional historians. Most of original documents related to history of Russia, are in Russian. So, the descriptions of historical events in Russian dominate; up to year 2018, the most articles about history, loaded in TORI, are in Russian.
The official Soviet and Russian textbooks about history of Russia and USSR can be qualified as propaganda rather than as science. Almost all the non-trivial statements, postulated in these books, are just false. For this reason, as the first approximation, in TORI, the collection of inversions (negations) of statements by Soviet historic textbooks is taken as base, on which the scientific concepts about history of Russia are constructed.
Need of history for physics and examples
An example of attitude of non-scientists (politicians) to history is represented as disgrace in book Superfunctions. This example is copypasted below:
One emperor wanted to study history. He ordered the Ministry of Sci- ence to develop a full course of the world-wide history. The greatest scientists were working on this tutorial during many years. Finally, the heavy truck arrived with thousands volumes of "Complete Course of the World History". The Emperor realised that all his life will not be sufficient to read this course. The Emperor asked the President of the Ministry of Science to shorten the course. The historians worked on the second edition during few years, and then, in a big pack, "Trilogy of the World History" had been deliverer to the Emperor. But the Emperor already had weak eyes, and he could not read that Trilogy. Again, the historians had to shorten the course. A year later, the Top Historician came to the Emperor and gave him the pamphlet "A Brief History of the Imperial Family." The Emperor was old and ill, and could not even read that brochure. He asked Historian whether the brochure can be reduced. The Historian answered: “No new edition is necessary. I’ll tell you right now: People were born, suffered and died.”
An example from the last emulation:
Actions by Russians are not predictable. But the general trend is clear and allows the simple forecast. Bolsheviks killed their farmers with hunger. They flooded the fertile lands, to make the hydroelectric power plants. Regions of agriculture are polluted with the nuclear industry. Russians have low density of population, but they contaminated their fields so heavily, that they have to buy grain. I thought that I will die of old age, but now I know that I will die of laughter. Stalin grabbed the agrarian country and turned it into a concentration camp and nuclear dump. Lenin could derived Russians from the swamp, where he brought them. But they successfully poisoned Lenin. After a couple of generations, Russians will degrade even more; they will not be able to explore even the mineral deposits; they'll have to invite workers from China for this. People will die, and the "nomenclature" and their servants will buy from us the luxury and other goods, selling the concessions. For the communist leaders, this is most profitable business. We can prevent new military aggression from Russia. So, in the interests of the UK (and other Western countries) is to preserve the USSR as long as possible: it is source of cheap raw materials and a good market to dump the poor quality products. Russians destroy cybernetics and genetics - this is good for us; we'll sell to the USSR the seeds and the electronic devices. In addition, for a symbolic fee, we'll deposit at Russia the nuclear waste. As we stop the Soviet expansion, the Soviets will destroy themselves without any effort from our side. We'll buy the leaders of the Soviet veterans, and they'll buy from us the rope to hung each other.
The strongest historical events are wars and revolutions.
Up to century 21, the historic science is not yet so developed as physics or mathematics, and the historic predictions are non-accurate, so non-accurate, that it can be expressed with sentence Prediction of revolution is impossible. Many examples of predictions of revolutions in century 21 are collected in article Предсказания революций (In Russian); by year 2016, most of them just failed.
The definition of term Science implies that the scientific concept makes predictions, that allow, in particular, the refutation. Namely in this part, the historic science seems to be underdeveloped. Collection of descriptions of historical events and their interpretations, yet, does not lead to any universal scientific concept, that would allow accurate prediction of historical events. The best predictions (in particular, that of collapse of the USSR in century 20, the extension of the Putin world war to Ukraine), that happen to be successful, are only small islands in the ocean of predictions that fail.
Many predictions about Russia in century 21 are observed, in particular, about the Russia revolution. Such a predictions are observed especially frequently since the beginning of the Putin world war (2008); from year to year, the revolution is Russia is expected, predicted, roughly, "for the next year". Appearance of these prediction seem to be regular, repeated historical phenomenon. So, for the beginning of century 21, the scientific concept about revolution in Russia can be formulated in the following way:
Since 2008, every year, the new and new publications appear that predict revolution in Russia within one or two years.
This a prediction seems to be, in some sense, stable: Expectation, that new similar predictions (instead of allready predicted revolution) are well confirmed. No other, alternative (and similarly efficient) concept on the same subject is observed.
In such a way, the concept should be qualified as scientific fact: at the present level of development of the historic science, the prediction of revolutions is not possible.
In the similar way, one cannot predict the moment of decay of each unstable nucleus (for example, trapped in some ion trap or atomic trap). The only, the mathematical expectation of duration the interval of time until the decay can be estimated; and this expectation does not change with time until the decay occurs.
- http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/69/7/10.1063/PT.3.3235 Matthew Stanley. Why should physicists study history? Physics Today, July 2016, page 38. .. The history of science can help dismantle the myth of the purely rational genius living outside the everyday world. .. Historian and philosopher Hasok Chang argues that science’s plurality of interpretations can make the history of science a resource for modern scientific research. He calls his approach complementary science—recovering forgotten and unsolved puzzles from the past. .. History teaches that knowledge is not fixed. Historical thinking involves asking incisive questions: Why did people in the past think that was true? Why do I think the opposite is true? ..