First, to repeat my comment, I believe the Wikipedia page scientific skepticism describes our general hand-wavey world view.
I am not suggesting every user and every answer adheres to it precisely in all walks of life, just that that is the sort of question and answer that is most likely to be upvoted, and least likely to be closed as off-topic.
So, questions that can be answered with empirical data from reproduceable experiments are our sweet spot.
Historical questions are not explicitly off-topic, but you can see us some of us tugging at our collars when the question is is about history. I don't want to get into a discussion about "Is history a science?", because it would be unproductive, but it is clear that much of historical facts require dependence of authorities and experts, with only limited cross-checking. Indeed, the overlap between History.SE and Skeptics.SE has been discussed, and they don't appear interested in "Is this historical fact real?" questions.
(I see similar collar-tugging when a question is about economic models, and I think it is for similar reasons - Borror0's contributions notwithstanding.)
If you are talking about the distant past, as in greater than 100K years ago, where it isn't about human history, and it is more about paleontology or planet-forming, that is a different issue again, and starts becoming more clearly science, as models can be made to produce predictions that can be checked with further collection of evidence.