The Problem of Correlation between Natural Science and Humanities Knowledge in the Case of Physics and History

The problem of correlation between natural science and humanities knowledge in the case of two scientific disciplines — history and physics - was examined. Arguments were presented in favor of the special status of historical science, and more broadly, of humanities knowledge in comparison with the natural sciences. Critical remarks are made regarding the presented line of reasoning. Critical remarks were presented regarding the arguments set forth. Among the fundamental differences, the following are identified: physics is characterized by the use of experimentation, whereas in history, for objective reasons, experimentation cannot be carried out. As a consequence, history also lacks one of the key advantages of experimentation — its reproducibility. Physics is capable of generating empirically verified general laws of nature, whereas history deals with the study of unique phenomena that are more difficult to generalize. The natural sciences are characterized by a higher capacity for predicting phenomena with greater accuracy, which is not typical of humanities knowledge.  The impartiality of the physicist as a scientist is contrasted with the fact that a historian’s thinking is conditioned by their worldview, value system, and socio-political context. The objectivity of the natural scientist is set against the methodological approach of understanding, immersion, and empathy employed by historians and ethnographers. The principle of observability in the natural sciences is contrasted with the historian’s need to reconstruct unobservable events and identify their implicit causes. It is noted that physics cannot be conceived without universal constants (fundamental physical constants), whereas in history the derivation and application of analogous quantities is not feasible. As a result of the critical analysis of the arguments considered, it is concluded that both natural science and humanities knowledge possess inherent limitations related both to the structure of the Universe itself and to the cognitive capacities of the knowing subject, and that physics and history most likely represent heterogeneous particular cases of a single whole.

EDN GZUNLO

References
[1] Comte A. Discours sur l’esprit positif. Paris, Librairie de Bachelier, 1844 [In Russ.: Kont O. Obshchiy obzor pozitivizma. Moscow, Librokom Publ., 2012, 296 p.].
[2] Dilthey W. Gesammelte Schriften. Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften. Leipzig, Teubner, 1883 [In Russ.: Diltey V. Sobranie sochineniy. Vvedenie v nauki o dukhe. In 6 vols. Vol. 1. Moscow, Dom intellektualnoy knigi Publ., 2000, 762 p.].
[3] Dilthey W. Ideen über eine beschreibende und zergliedernde Psychologie. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1894 [In Russ.: Diltey V. Opisatelnaya psikhologiya. Moscow, Ripol Klassik Publ., 2018, 290 p.].
[4] Grondin J. Hermeneutik. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht Publ., 2009, 134 S.
[5] Pisarchik L.Yu. Filosofiya kultury i metodologiya istoricheskogo poznaniya Frayburgskoy (Badenskoy) shkoly neokantianstva [Philosophy of culture and methodology of historical cognition of the Freiburg (Baden) school of Neo-Kantianism]. Vestnik OGU — Vestnik of the Orenburg State University, 2008, no. 2, pp. 31–46.
[6] Gadamer H.-G. Istina v naukakh o dukhe [Truth in the human sciences]. Topos. Filosofsko-kulturologicheskiy zhurnal — Journal for philosophy and cultural studies Topos, 2000, no. 1, pp. 7–12.
[7] Vernadsky V.I. Sobranie sochineniy. V 24 t. T. 10. Nauchnaya mysl kak planetarnoe yavlenie [Collection of works. In 24 vols. Vol. 10. Scientific thought as a planetary phenomenon]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 2013, 475 p.
[8] Rozin V.M. Protivopostavlenie i pereosmyslenie estestvenno-nauchnogo i gumanitarnykh podkhodov [Opposition and rethinking of natural science and humanities approaches]. Psikhologiya. Zhurnal VShE — Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2018, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 291–306.
[9] Milovanova G.V., Kharitonova I.V. Gumanitarnaya i estestvenno-nauchnaya kul’tura segodnya [Humanitarian and natural science culture today]. Gumanitariy — Russian Journal of the Humanities, 2009, no. 8, pp. 101–105.
[10] Mal’tseva N.N. Filosofsko-metodologicheskie aspekty vzaimodeystviya estestvennykh i gumanitarnykh nauk [Philosophical and methodological aspects of interaction between natural and humanities sciences]. Nauchnyy rezultat. Sotsialnye i gumanitarnye issledovaniya — Research Result. Social Studies and Humanities, 2014, no. 2, pp. 78–84.
[11] Lebedev S.A. Filosofiya nauki: kratkaya entsiklopediya (osnovnye napravleniya, kontseptsii, kategorii) [Philosophy of science: a brief encyclopedia (main directions, concepts, categories)]. Moscow, Akademicheskiy Proekt Publ., 2008, 692 p.
[12] Propp M.V. Nauchnyy metod [Scientific method]. Vestnik DVO RAN — Vestnik of the Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2004, no. 1, pp. 138–149.
[13] Trefil J. Cassell’s Laws of Nature. Cassell Reference, 2002 [In Russ.: Trefil Dzh. 200 zakonov mirozdaniya]. Moscow, Gelios Publ., 2007, 528 p.
[14] Nesin M.A. Gde po arkheologicheskim dannym voknyazhilsya Ryurik i mozhno li rekonstruirovat varyazhskuyu legendu Povesti vremennykh let po dvum letopisnym pamyatnikam XVI st.? [Where Rurik established his rule according to archaeological data and whether the Varangian legend of the Primary Chronicle can be reconstructed from two 16th-century chronicles]. Vestnik Alyans — Arkheo, 2018, no. 25, pp. 3–10.
[15] Rozin V.M. K probleme demarkatsii estestvennykh i gumanitarnykh nauk, a takzhe kuda my dolzhny otnesti kosmologiyu [On the problem of demarcation of natural and humanities sciences and where cosmology should be classified]. Epistemologiya & filosofiya nauki — Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2007, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 111–128.
[16] Bagdasaryan V.E. Kognitivnye matritsy manipulyativnykh tekhnologiy v voynakh i revolyutsiyakh novogo tipa [Cognitive matrices of manipulative technologies in wars and revolutions of a new type]. Vestnik MGOU. Ser. Istoriya i politicheskie nauki — Bulletin of the State University of Education. Series: History and Political Sciences, 2020, no. 1, pp. 8–23.
[17] Nisbett R., Wilson T. The halo effect: evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 250–256.
[18] Le Texier Th. Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 2019, vol. 74, no. 7, pp. 823–839.
[19] Swenson L. The Michelson–Morley–Miller experiments before and after 1905. Journal for the History of Astronomy, 1970, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 56–78.
[20] Shamir J., Fox R. A new experimental test of special relativity. Il Nuovo Cimento B, 1969, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 258–264.
[21] Müller H., Stanwix P., Tobar M., Ivanov E., Wolf P., Herrmann S., Senger A., Kovalchuk E., Peters A. Tests of relativity by complementary rotating Michelson–Morley experiments. Physical Review Letters, 2007, vol. 99, no. 5. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.050401 (accessed May 8, 2025).
[22] Butyagin A.M. Pompei, Gerkulanum, Oplontis, Stabii. Kratkiy ocherk istorii i arkheologii [Pompeii, Herculaneum, Oplontis, Stabiae. A brief outline of history and archaeology]. Saint Petersburg, State Hermitage Museum Publ., 2019, 92 p.
[23] Windelband W. Praeludien. Aufsätze und Reden zur Philosophie und ihrer Geschichte. Tübingen, Mohr (Siebeck), 1884 [In Russ.: Vindelband V. Prelyudii]. Moscow, Giperboreya Publ., Kuchkovo pole Publ., 2007, 400 p.
[24] Rickert H. Die Grenzen der naturwissenschaftlichen Begriffsbildung. Tübingen, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1896 [In Russ.: Rikkert G. Nauki o prirode i nauki o kulture]. Moscow, Respublika Publ., 1998, 413 p.
[25] Shults E.E. K voprosu o klassifikatsii revolyutsiy [On the classification of revolutions]. Politiya — Politeia, 2018, no. 2, pp. 137–155.
[26] Yasko T.N. Pervaya russkaya revolyutsiya 1905–1907 gg. [The first Russian revolution of 1905–1907]. Rossiya i ATR — Russia and the Pacific, 2005, no. 4, pp. 153–156.
[27] Novaya filosofskaya entsiklopediya [New Philosophical Encyclopedia]. In 4 vols. Vol. 2. E-M. Moscow, Mysl Publ., 2010, 638 p.
[28] Kazakov D.I. Fundamentalnye vzaimodeystviya [Fundamental interactions]. PostNauka. Available at: https://postnauka.org/video/47947 (accessed June 14, 2025).
[29] Shtern B.E., Rubakov V.A. Astrofizika. Troitskiy variant [Astrophysics. Troitsky variant]. Moscow, AST Publ., 2020, 368 p.
[30] Veber M. Khozyaystvo i obschestvo: ocherki ponimayuschey sotsiologii [Economy and Society: Essays in Interpretive Sociology]. Sotsiologiya [Sociology]. Moscow, HSE University Publ., 2016, vol. I, 445 p.
[31] Velikiy P.P., Vyalshina A.A. Sovremennaya rossiyskaya derevnya: aktualnye problemy i ikh otrazhenie v agrarnoy sotsiologii [Modern Russian countryside: current problems and their reflection in agrarian sociology]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya — Sociological Studies, 2025, no. 1, pp. 53–69.
[32] Lakatos I. Selected Works on Philosophy and Methodology of Science. Cambridge University Press, 1978 [In Russ.: Lakatos I. Izbrannye proizvedeniya po filosofii i metodologii nauki]. Moscow, Akademicheskiy proekt Publ.; Triksta Publ., 2008, 475 p.
[33] Kochetkov A.V., Fedotov P.V. O sootnoshenii metodov rascheta dvizheniya planet po Ptolemeyu i Kepleru (chast 1) [On the relation between methods of calculating planetary motion according to Ptolemy and Kepler (Part 1)]. Internet-zhurnal Naukovedenie, 2015, vol. 7, no. 4. Available at: https://naukovedenie.ru/PDF/143TVN415.pdf (accessed June 20, 2025).
[34] Turyshev S.G. Eksperimentalnye proverki obschey teorii otnositelnosti: nedavnie uspekhi i buduschie napravleniya issledovaniy [Experimental tests of general relativity: recent advances and future directions]. Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk — Physics-Uspekhi (Advances in Physical Sciences), 2009, vol. 179, no. 1, pp. 3–34.
[35] Naydysh O.V. Obydennoe soznanie i sovremennaya futurologiya [Ordinary consciousness and modern futurology]. Vestnik RUDN. Ser. Filosofiya — RUDN Journal of Philosophy, 2017, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 240–249.
[36] Robotham A., Bellstedt S. Humans have been predicting eclipses for thousands of years, but it’s harder than you might think. Phys.org. Available at: https://phys.org/news/2023-04-humans-eclipses-thousands-years-harder.html (accessed June 22, 2025).
[37] Markeev A.P. Zadacha trekh tel i ee tochnye resheniya [The three-body problem and its exact solutions]. Sorosovskiy obrazovatelnyy zhurnal, 1999, no. 9, pp. 112–117.
[38] Andryukhin A.I., Kovalev A.M., Sudakov S.N. Zadacha trekh tel i opredelenie napravleniya na Lunu i Solntse v zadannoy tochke s poverkhnosti Zemli [The three-body problem and determination of direction to the Moon and the Sun at a given point on the Earth’s surface]. Zhurnal teoreticheskoy i prikladnoy mekhaniki — Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, 2017, no. 3–4, pp. 11–18.
[39] Laplace P.S. A philosophical essay on probabilities. New York, London, John Wiley & Sons, Chapman & Hall, 1902, 196 p.
[40] Kortunov A.V. Na puti k iskusstvennomu intellektu — prishestvie demona Laplasa [On the way to artificial intelligence — the coming of Laplace’s demon]. Nevidimoe izmerenie, 2023, no. 1, pp. 40–45.
[41] Gijsbers V.A. The paradox of predictability. Erkenntnis, 2023, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 579–596.
[42] Asratyan N.M. O vzaimosvyazyakh estestvoznaniya i gumanitarnykh nauk [On the interrelations between natural sciences and humanities]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya — Sociological Studies, 2016, no. 6, pp. 138–141.
[43] Sukhov A.D. Marksistskaya traktovka religii [Marxist interpretation of religion]. Filosofiya i obshchestvo — Philosophy and Society, 2014, no. 3, pp. 49–66.
[44] Sventsitskaya I.S. Rannee khristianstvo: stranitsy istorii [Early Christianity: pages of history]. Moscow, Politizdat Publ., 1987, 336 p.
[45] Winn R.E. Christianity in the Roman Empire: key figures, beliefs, and practices of the early Church (AD 100–300). Peabody, Hendrickson Publ., 2018, 158 p.
[46] Jaspers K. Smysl i naznachenie istorii [The meaning and purpose of history]. Moscow, Politizdat Publ., 1991, 527 p.
[47] Mikaberidze A. The battle of Borodino. Napoleon against Kutuzov. Barnsley, Pen & Sword Military Publ., 2007, 276 p.
[48] Danilova E.A., Sulyak S.G. Prazdnik so slezami na glazakh: ob otnoshenii ko Dnyu Pobedy v Rossii [A holiday with tears in the eyes: attitudes toward Victory Day in Russia]. Rusin, 2021, no. 66, pp. 248–282.
[49] Savel’eva I.M., Poletaev A.V. Klassicheskoe nasledie [Classical heritage]. Moscow, HSE University Publ., 2010, 336 p.
[50] Febvre L. Combats pour l’histoire. Armand Colin, 1953 [In Russ.: Febvre L. Boi za istoriyu. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1991, 632 p.].
[51] Belik A.A. Kulturnaya (sotsial’naya) antropologiya — oblast nauchnykh issledovaniy i uchebnaya distsiplina [Cultural (social) anthropology as a field of research and academic discipline]. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie — Ethnographic Review, 2000, no. 6, pp. 3–14.
[52] Mead M. Male and Female: A Study of the Sexes in a Changing World. William Morrow & Company, 1949 [In Russ.: Mead M. Muzhskoe i zhenskoe: issledovanie polovogo voprosa v menyayuschemsya mire]. Moscow, ROSSPEN Publ., 2004, 416 p.
[53] Styopin V.S. Nauchnoe poznanie i tsennosti tekhnogennoy tsivilizatsii [Scientific cognition and values of technogenic civilization]. Voprosy filosofii, 1989, no. 10, pp. 3–18.
[54] Styopin V.S. Tipy nauchnoy ratsionalnosti i sinergeticheskaya paradigma [Types of scientific rationality and the synergetic paradigm]. Slozhnost. Razum. Postneklassika — Complexity. Mind. Postnonclassic, 2013, no. 4, pp. 45–59.
[55] Bohr N. Kvantovaya fizika i filosofiya (prichinnost i dopolnitelnost) [Quantum physics and philosophy (causality and complementarity)]. Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk — Physics-Uspekhi (Advances in Physical Sciences), 1959, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 37–42.
[56] Hanson N.R. Patterns of discovery: an inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. Cambridge, CUP Publ., 1958, 240 p.
[57] Duhem P. La théorie physique: son objet et sa structure. Marcel Rivière & Cie, 1906 [In Russ.: Duhem P. Fizicheskaya teoriya. Ee tsel i stroenie. Moscow, KomKniga Publ., 2007, 328 p.].
[58] Pavlenko A.N. Printsip nablyudaemosti, «stadiya empiricheskoy nesovmestimosti teorii» (SEWT) i «konstruktivnyy empirizm» (CE) [The principle of observability, the “stage of empirical incompatibility of theory” (SEWT) and “constructive empiricism” (CE)]. Vestnik RUDN. Ser. Filosofiya — RUDN Journal of Philosophy, 2011, no. 3, pp. 8–21.
[59] Marx K., Engels F. Sochineniya [Works]. In 30 vols. Vol. 3. Moscow, Gospolitizdat Publ., 1955, 630 p.
[60] Zaborov M.A. Krestovye pokhody [The crusades]. Moscow, Yauza Publ., 2016, 366 p.
[61] Krivushin I.V. Krestovye pokhody [The crusades]. Online Encyclopedia Krugosvet. Available at: https://www.krugosvet.ru/enc/istoriya/krestovye-pohody (accessed August 16, 2025).
[62] Chechetkina I.I. Razvitie aksiomaticheskikh sistem v kvantovoy mekhanike [Development of axiomatic systems in quantum mechanics]. Vestnik MGOU. Ser. Filosofskie nauki — Bulletin of Moscow Region State University. Series: Philosophy, 2018, no. 1, pp. 140–151.
[63] Faustov R.N. Fundamentalnye fizicheskie konstanty. Fizicheskaya entsiklopediya [Fundamental physical constants. Physical Encyclopedia]. Stroboskopicheskie pribory — Yarkost [Stroboscopic devices — Brightness]. In 5 vols. Vol. 5. Moscow, BRE Publ., 1998, pp. 381–383.
[64] Okun’ L.B. Fundamental’nye konstanty fiziki [Fundamental physical constants]. Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk — Physics-Uspekhi (Advances in Physical Sciences), 1991, vol. 161, no. 9, pp. 177–194.