Eliot was a chemist, so perhaps we should take his criticisms with a grain of salt.
Again, there is plenty of research showing that active learning is better in areas other than the sciences and math. See the section on History education in the free book How Students Learn, for example: http://www.nap.edu/read/10126/chapter/3
or the book Doing History, or work by Sam Wineburg and other history education researchers.
vogue
I wouldnt't call it a "craze" or a "vogue" when people have been arguing for it for over 100 years and there are now thousands of empirical research articles demonstrating that it is superior to traditional lecture. Rejecting active learning in favor of traditional lecture is akin to the 19th doctors who rejected the idea that they needed to wash their hands: https://edtechdev.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/healthcare/
2014 study showed that test scores in science and math courses improved after professors replaced lecture time with “active learning” methods like group work
It's not just math and science. There are studies showing active learning is better than lecture for history teaching and other areas, too. Here's just one: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:IHIE.0000047415.48495.05#page-1