Humanities and natural sciences. Good question: what really separates the humanities from the sciences?

Origin modern science usually referred to as times Ancient Greece(see article ““). Many modern humanitarian and natural Sciences find their roots precisely in the works of the philosophers of Hellas. In European university science, these roots sprouted new shoots during the Renaissance. In the early stages of the development of science, most scientists were knowledgeable in almost all areas of knowledge. However, this encyclopedicism was lost as an uncontrollably growing number of facts, theories, hypotheses, and experimental approaches accumulated. The sciences became increasingly differentiated, and scientists, overwhelmed by the growing volume, became increasingly narrow specialists. Even in the last century, A.K. Tolstoy, through the mouth of Kozma Prutkov, stated: “A specialist is like gumboil: his completeness is one-sided.”

Gradually, the sciences were more and more sharply divided into humanities and natural sciences, and even natural scientists, for example physicists and biologists, often ceased to understand each other. The most specialized specialists who knew everything in one very specific area of ​​science were increasingly valued, even if they were simply ignorant in all others. The scientific snobbery of such natural scientists even gave rise to a popular joke: “Sciences are divided into natural, unnatural - humanitarian and unnatural - philosophy.” The extreme divergence of sciences, the inability and “proud” reluctance of scientists of different specialties, with the exception of the most widely educated, to understand the fundamentals of not only related, but also more or less “distant” areas of knowledge, was reflected in the increasing specialization of technology. Until a certain stage, this was supported by the economy, because usually an extremely narrowly specialized machine or device provides the greatest labor productivity. But even in the traditional natural sciences that had emerged by the end of the last century, problems accumulated that required turning to other areas of knowledge. One after another, new, “borderline” sciences began to emerge - physical chemistry and chemical physics, biochemistry and biophysics, geophysics and biogeochemistry, etc. At the same time, data gradually accumulated on the unfavorable consequences for people’s lives of the inevitable misunderstanding of the importance of the interconnection of all influences.

Obtaining cheap hydropower brought enormous losses to agriculture, taking it out of circulation. large areas the most fertile floodplain lands; the most economical methods of timber harvesting - clear cuttings, skidding with powerful tractors - almost irreversibly destroyed forests, cheap transportation of forests, especially moth rafting, made many lifeless, excessive irrigation led to salinization and virtual destruction. Examples of such “victories over nature” that are still being accomplished today can be continued almost endlessly.

Life has demanded new encyclopedists - generalist specialists, the so-called “system specialists”, who inevitably do not have sufficiently detailed knowledge of individual industries and their theoretical basis, but capable of understanding the interaction of a variety of forces, both natural and man-made. Awareness of the threat of the environmental crisis has only exacerbated the objective need for such “new model” encyclopedist scientists. Since the main object of concern of science and technology has always been and remains man, a new integration of the natural and human sciences has become necessary.

Everything, on the development of which the future of humanity will largely depend, has essentially become an integrative science. It combines the basic approaches of biogeochemistry, climatology, geography, history, economics, and many other natural and human sciences. Of course, a modern encyclopedist often has to resort to the help of specialists and not so much operate with the entire arsenal of facts and theories of many sciences (this exceeds human capabilities), but rather know their basic laws and empirical generalizations. But without such experts, it is no longer possible to make a single decision, the implementation of which is associated with any impact on the natural environment.

Culture as a set of norms, knowledge, and traditions is closely connected with religion as one of its main forms. The culture of different ethnic groups in their historical existence was formed to a large extent under the influence of the gradually developing stable interactions of ethnic groups with the enclosing landscapes and the natural environment of people's lives. Modern civilization, largely formed under the influence of European civilization and having adopted its main features, considers unlimited economic and, above all, material development as its priority values, the only source of which remains the ever-increasing use of renewable and non-renewable resources. natural resources. This path obviously leads to an inevitable worsening of the environmental crisis, which arose as one of the many aspects of the crisis of modern consumer civilization. Apparently, only overcoming the civilizational crisis will make possible a real solution to the entire complex global problems, which in their interconnection constitute a threat of environmental crisis.

Ethnic history convinces us of the possibility of changing basic values, and the awareness of the inevitability of this creates the prospect of a transition as the highest priority values ​​of humanity to unlimited spiritual and scientific development and improvement, to the need to preserve natural environment in all its diversity. In such a rethinking of the ideals and goals of life main role Religion, science, and education will apparently be able to play a role.

To begin with, let us ask a question that, at first glance, has nothing to do with the formation of classical ethology, or in general with the topic of this book: how, in fact, do they differ humanitarian sciences from natural ones?

Many copies have been broken around this issue and many opinions have been expressed - ranging from classical definition German philosopher and cultural historian Wilhelm Dilthey (who proposed to distinguish between “natural sciences” - natural and “spiritual sciences” - humanities) and to arrogant teasers: they say, the humanities are those that can be successfully practiced by a person who is unable to overcome school course mathematics. A separate subject of debate is the classification of certain specific disciplines as natural or humanitarian.

Some passionately argue that modern psychology has long been a natural science, since it is all based on experiment and uses such complex instruments as magnetic resonance imaging.

Of course, such statements reflect only widespread stereotypes (generated not only by poor familiarity with the subject, but also by an underlying desire for self-affirmation). However, even more correct and competent judgments often cannot clarify the situation. For example, it is written on Wikipedia that “the humanities are disciplines that study man in the sphere of his spiritual, mental, moral, cultural and social activities" It seems clear, but imagine, for example, a group of doctors and pharmacists studying the rehabilitation of people who have suffered a stroke. They ask their patients to read a written text, perform arithmetic operations, name the names of loved ones... This, of course, directly relates to the spiritual and mental spheres - but is this enough to recognize such research as humanitarian?

The division according to the methods used also does not add clarity. For example, the methods by which the young science of bioinformatics establishes family connections between species of bears or strains of a virus (who came from whom and in what sequence) are essentially no different from the methods by which medieval textualists establish genetic connections between different lists of the same thing. the same monument. Nobody seems to doubt that bioinformatics (including molecular phylogenetics) is a natural science, and even more so about the humanitarian nature of textual criticism.

Without pretending to comprehensive solution this old and rather complicated question, let’s try to point out one difference that is often mentioned, but usually in passing, in the background, as an additional one. Thus, the same article on Wikipedia, in particular, says: “Unlike the natural sciences, where subject-object relations predominate, in the humanities we are talking about subject-subject relations.” A reader who is not too attentive will glance at this line and immediately forget it. And in vain. She points to the very essence.

The fact is that in the humanities, in the relationship between the subject of research and its object, there is always a certain “two-layer” - which never happens in the natural sciences.

No matter how complex and multi-linked the chain of interactions by which a natural scientist judges his object may be, there is no subject in it. The only subject naturally scientific research- the researcher himself. And in, say, a historical study, there are at least two of these subjects: a modern historian and the author of the source being studied. The latter is subject descriptions of historical reality and at the same time object modern research: after all, even if nothing is known about it, a modern scientist, willy-nilly, sees the events, processes and people of interest to him only through the medium of the ancient chronicler. And no matter how critically he treats it, no matter how he checks everything possible using independent methods (according to reports from other sources, according to archaeological data, etc.), such a view is radically different from the “unmediated” view of a natural scientist.

It follows from this, in particular, that what we call “ historical fact", is not a fact in the sense in which this word is used in natural science. For example, in some Tmutarakan chronicle it is written that in such and such a year Prince Vseposlav did such and such - for example, he made a campaign against a neighbor or was baptized. Events of this kind are usually called “historical fact.” But is this really a fact? No. The only fact here is that there is such a chronicle message. Anyone can, with some effort, see the original document, and if the skeptic has sufficient qualifications, then carry out the appropriate analyzes (parchment, ink, lettering, features of word usage, etc.) and make sure that this fragment was written at the same time as the whole the rest of the text, and the language of the document corresponds to the era of the reign of Vseposlav. But did the prince really complete his campaign? If so, did it happen that year and not another? Was this campaign as victorious as the chronicle tells us?

It is impossible to a priori consider everything that the chronicle says as facts - it may also be written there, for example, that during this campaign the prince turned into a gray wolf at night.

This means that we must correlate this with all available other data, with the laws of nature and common sense. This is how they treat not facts, but theories, hypotheses, and reconstructions.

If anyone believes that this is an exaggeration or an attempt to discredit the reliability of historical knowledge, let them at least look at the controversy modern historians that in the chronicle story about the baptism of Prince Vladimir in Korsun can be considered a statement real events, and what - literary and edifying additions. Or he will turn to the circumstances of the death of Tsarevich Dimitri: having two richly documented accounts of the events of May 1591 in Uglich, historians still cannot say anything definite about how the Tsarevich died, since both versions (“Godunovskaya” and “anti-Godunovskaya”) are absolutely implausible even to the most benevolent glance.

One should not think, however, that this effect is inherent only historical science. Of course, in different sciences its size and forms can be very different. In linguistics, for example, it is almost invisible (which is what makes many people persistently want to exclude it from the humanities): an individual native speaker of a language can do almost nothing with it through a conscious effort. Some people have managed to introduce a new, previously non-existent word into the language, but no one has yet been able to arbitrarily endow the language with a new case or a new prepositional construction. Therefore, linguistics can treat language “over the head” of the second subject, almost like an object of natural science (although if you know what to look for, the influence of the “second subject” can be discerned there too). But psychology is doomed to remain a humanitarian science, despite the powerful arsenal of natural scientific methods and instruments, or the aspirations of outstanding psychologists and whole scientific schools. She cannot get away from the second subject, because he is, in fact, the subject of her study.

Note that the presence of a second subject allows the humanities to study objects that... simply do not exist. That is, they do not exist objectively - but they exist in people’s ideas and, as such, may well become an object of study.

One of the areas of folklore, for example, is devoted to the study of ideas about various kinds of supernatural creatures - goblins, brownies, water creatures, kikimoras, etc. Specialists in this field map the distribution zone of, say, Uros(have you heard of this type of evil spirit?) as definitely as zoologists - the range snow leopard or indian rhinoceros. And literary scholars can even study a deliberate fiction, the fictitious nature of which is known not only to them, but also to the “second subject” himself - the author of the work being studied. And because of this, literary criticism does not cease to be a real, full-fledged science.

A few years ago, a scandal broke out in Britain when it became known that homeopathy was being taught in some provincial universities. After strong protest from scientific and medical organizations Some of these institutions abandoned the odious subject. And others... simply transferred it from the natural cycle (where this course was taught along with medical disciplines) to the humanities. In fact, whether homeopathic effects exist or not, this specific field of human activity itself - with its tradition, history, rules, theories, institutions, etc. - certainly exists, which means it can be studied. Humanitarian methods.

What does all this have to do with animal behavior?

The most direct. As already mentioned in the introductory chapter, a particular sequence of animal actions can only be called “behavior” when it carries some meaning- and specifically for the animal itself, that is, subjective. In other words, in behavioral science, just as in the humanities, there is always a second subject - the animal whose behavior we want to study. But at the same time, the researcher of animal behavior is deprived of the opportunity to apply the methods of the humanities to his object.

The fact is that all these methods are somehow related to the study signs, through which the “second subject” makes his inner world at least partially accessible to an outside observer. And undoubtedly the main type of such signs, without which almost all others cannot exist, is word, articulate speech - sounded or recorded by one or another writing system. It is in the word that both the historical document and folk tale, and a classical poem, and the experiences of the subject in a psychological experience.

As we have already mentioned briefly, speaking about the formation of scientific psychology, all ingenious devices and methods turn out to be informative only when they can be correlated with the subjective world - and access to it is possible only through the word.

And even the birth of psychoanalysis, which discovered that in the inner world of a person there is a lot of things that he himself does not know about, changed nothing in this regard: slips of the tongue, free associations, the presentation of dreams, a story under hypnosis - all the material that allows a psychoanalyst to look into the realm of the unconscious, again embodied in the word.

But an animal behavior researcher does not have such opportunities. His “second subject” is fundamentally mute and speechless. And if one or another of his actions mean something (and without this they cannot be considered behavior) - how can one find out what exactly, without being able to resort to the mediation of words? Following animal psychology late XIX- the first quarter of the 20th century, we have approached this problem more than once. Together with Romens, we tried to judge the inner world of animals by analogy with what lies behind similar human behavior - and we were convinced that nothing would work that way. Together with Watson, we decided to ignore this inner world, to study patterns of behavior without reference to it - and were forced to admit through Tolman’s lips that this was also impossible. The dilemma seemed fundamentally insoluble, like Zeno’s aporia about the barber or the production of alkahest - a liquid that dissolves absolutely all substances.

A person has knowledge about the nature around him (the Universe), about himself and his own works. This divides all the information he has into two large sections - into natural science (natural in the sense that what is studied is what exists independently of man, as opposed to artificial - created by man) and humanitarian (from “homo” - man) knowledge, knowledge about man and the spiritual products of his activity. In addition, there is technical knowledge - knowledge about specific material products of human activity (Table 5.2.).

Typology of sciences

Table 5.2

As follows from the definition, the differences between natural science and humanitarian knowledge are that the former are based on the separation of the subject (man) and the object (nature, which is cognized by man - the subject), with primary attention paid to the object, and the latter are primarily related to to the subject himself.

Natural science in the full sense of the word is universally valid and provides “generic” truth, i.e. truth suitable and accepted by all people. Therefore, it has traditionally been regarded as the standard of scientific objectivity. Another large complex sciences - the humanities, on the contrary, has always been associated with group values ​​and interests that exist both among the scientist himself and in the subject of research. Therefore, in the methodology of the humanities, along with objective research methods, it acquires great importance experience of the event being studied, subjective attitude towards it, etc.

So, the main differences between the natural, humanitarian and technical sciences are that natural science studies the world as it exists independently of man, the humanities study the spiritual products of human activity, and technical sciences study the material products of human activity.

However, it is in principle impossible to draw a clear line between the natural, humanities and technical sciences, since there are a number of disciplines that occupy an intermediate position or are complex in nature. Thus, at the intersection of the natural and human sciences there is economical geography, at the intersection of natural and technical - bionics, and a complex discipline that includes natural, humanitarian, and technical sections is social ecology.

Separate from the three cycles of sciences, there is mathematics, which is also divided into separate disciplines. Of the three cycles, mathematics is closest to natural science, and this connection is manifested in the fact that mathematical methods are widely used in the natural sciences, especially in physics.

The results of scientific research are theories, laws, models, hypotheses, and empirical generalizations. All these concepts can be combined in one word - “concepts”. Having clarified the main features of modern science, we can define natural science. It is a branch of science based on reproducible empirical testing of hypotheses and the creation of theories or empirical generalizations that describe natural phenomena.

The subject of natural science is facts and phenomena that are perceived by our senses or instruments that are their continuation. The scientist's task is to summarize these facts and create a theoretical model that includes the laws governing natural phenomena. It is necessary to distinguish between: 1) facts of experience, 2) empirical generalizations, 3) theories that formulate the laws of science. Phenomena, such as gravity, are directly given in experience; laws of science, for example law universal gravity, - options for explaining phenomena. The facts of science, once established, retain their permanent significance; laws can be changed during the development of science, just as, say, the law of universal gravitation was adjusted after the creation of the theory of relativity.

The relationship between feelings and reason in the process of finding truth is a complex philosophical issue. In science, a position that is confirmed by reproducible experience is recognized as truth. The basic principle of natural science is that knowledge about nature must be capable of empirical verification. Not in the sense that every particular statement must necessarily be empirically verified, but in the fact that experience is ultimately the decisive argument for the acceptance of a given theory.

The first science was astronomy(from the Greek “astron” - star and “nomos” - law) - the science of the structure and development of cosmic bodies and their systems. Let us pay attention to the fact that the second root in the name of this science is nomos, and not logos - knowledge, as usual in the name of sciences (biology, geology, etc.). This is explained historical reasons. The fact is that at this period astrology already existed, which was not a science, but was engaged in drawing up horoscopes (this continues to be fashionable today, and many publications publish astrological forecasts). To distinguish scientific studies of the Universe from non-scientific ones, a new name was required, which contains the word “law”, reflecting the fact that science aims to study the laws of development and functioning of the world. The first truly scientific theory was the heliocentric system of the world, created by the Polish scientist N. Copernicus.

In the 17th century it appeared physics(from the Greek “fuzis” - nature). The name is explained by the fact that in Ancient Greece physics was understood as a science that studies all natural objects. As other natural sciences emerged, the subject of physics became limited. The first of the physical disciplines was mechanics - the science of the movement of natural bodies, and its first major achievements were the laws of motion of the English scientist I. Newton and the law of universal gravitation discovered by him. Also in the 17th century. appeared chemistry- the science of the composition and structure of bodies, and in the 18th century. - biology(from the Greek “bios” - life) as the science of living bodies.

Humanities, of which they are a part social and humanitarian (public) - sciences that study society began to develop later. The first one is sociology, the name of which was proposed by O. Comte by analogy with the name of the science of living nature - biology. What I suggested new science precisely Comte, not by chance. He was the founder of a new philosophical trend - positivism and believed that human thinking went through three stages in its development - theological, metaphysical and positive (scientific), the latter being more fruitful because it is based on empirical (experimental) testing of hypotheses and theories, discovering the laws of nature. According to Comte, scientific thinking first asserted in the study of nature. Natural sciences emerged - astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology. Then the scientific approach was to triumph in the study of society, and the science of patterns social development may be called sociology.

However, if we now define sociology as the science of society, then this will not be accurate. The fact is that in the XIX-XX centuries. other sciences appeared that studied individual social phenomena. In the first half of the 19th century. appeared political science, and in the second half of the 19th century. - ethnography, later, in the middle of the 20th century, - cultural studies and other humanities. This is a natural process of scientific development. Physics once arose as a science of nature, but if we now call it a science of nature, we would be wrong. Now it is one of the natural sciences, since others have appeared - astronomy, chemistry, biology. To distinguish physics from other natural sciences, a more precise definition must be given. The same must be done with regard to sociology.

The difference between natural science and humanities knowledge is deeply embedded in the difference in their methodology. In methodology - the study of methods, approaches, methods of scientific research - it is stated that each science has its own special methodology. The difference between explanation (as a methodology of the natural sciences) and understanding (as a methodology of the humanities) will become clearer if we consider the situation of the formation of methodology in sociology. Sociology, according to Comte, recognizes the priority of the whole over the part and synthesis over analysis. This is how its methodology differs from the methodology of the sciences. inanimate nature, in which, on the contrary, there is a priority of the part over the whole and analysis over synthesis.

After the task of creating sociology was formulated, the next step was the introduction into sociological research of the scientific method, which was formulated in the natural sciences. What F. Bacon demanded for the development of science in modern times, E. Durkheim repeated for sociology, setting the task of identifying the “foundations of the experimental order” that should be part of the humanities. The discussion was about the status of the empirical level of research in sociology. In his book The Method of Sociology, Durkheim first formulated a clear idea of ​​the methodology of sociology, which in general outline contained in Comte's teachings, but was not developed with such exhaustive completeness. Durkheim can be considered the founder of the methodology of sociology, since he was the first to define the conditions under which research becomes scientific.

In his methodological works, Durkheim emphasized that sociologists should study their subject with the same open mind as natural scientists. “Thus, our rule... requires only one thing: that the sociologist immerse himself in the state of mind in which physicists, chemists, and physiologists find themselves when they enter a new, as yet unexplored area of ​​their science.” Durkheim identifies two formulas designed to justify the existence of the subject of sociology and its accessibility to empirical research. First: social facts should be considered as things, i.e. observe social facts from the outside - objectively as existing independently of the consciousness of the researcher. This point of view is called positivism in sociology.

Durkheim himself preferred the word “rationalism.” Social facts, he believed, have properties that are not contained in the human mind, since society cannot be reduced to the totality of its members. Durkheim argued that society is not just a sum of individuals, but a system created by their association, a special reality with its inherent characteristics. Therefore, explain social life should be sociological, and not psychological or any other reasons. According to Durkheim, between psychology and sociology there is the same gap as between biology and the physical and chemical sciences. Thus, Durkheim justified his approach by the presence of special emergent properties social systems, formed through sociocultural interaction studied by sociology.

Durkheim also formulated the relation theoretical research And practical recommendations. “However, we can rise to this ideal only after we observe reality and isolate this ideal from it.” In Durkheim's methodology, the classifications that he had after formulating the hypothesis were of great importance.

The positivist approach in sociology was opposed by the approach of M. Weber, who took into account fundamental differences between the subject of the humanities and the natural sciences: 1) the great complexity of social systems; 2) social reality depends on both objective and subjective factors; 3) social research includes personal, group and ideological interests; 4) the possibility of experimentation in social sciences are limited both in the sense of obtaining results and in the sense of checking them, and often one has to be content with observation.

These differences in subject matter determine the specificity of the humanities. It is characterized by the following features: 1) historicity - when a person becomes the object of knowledge, it is completely natural to show interest in the special features of an individual, community, era; 2) connection with culture - the need to understand the values ​​that guide people who create culture (value judgment is subjective, but taking into account values ​​is necessary in humanities research for their organization and selection of facts); 3) in the humanities we are not talking about a hypothetico-deductive system, as in the natural sciences, but about a set of interpretations, each of which is based on a selection of facts and is inextricably linked with a system of values; 4) if in the natural sciences the observed phenomena can be explained through premises that are mathematical in form and nature, and understanding is thus indirect in nature, then in the humanities understanding is direct, since human behavior is the outwardly manifested meaningfulness of individuals endowed with reason.

The specifics of sociology as a science led M. Weber to the conclusion that while Natural sciences aim at explanations, social sciences aim at understanding.“All social, significant human behavior is an expression of motivated mental states, which is why the social scientist cannot be satisfied with observing social processes simply as sequences.” externally interconnected" events and that the establishment of correlations or even universal connections in this sequence of events cannot be his ultimate goal. On the contrary, he must construct "ideal types" or "models of motivations" - terms in which he seeks to "understand" the apparent social behavior". According to Weber, the search for truth in sociology is impossible without a sensory relationship to the object of research, experience and “getting used to” it. M. Weber called sociology an “understanding” science, i.e. seeking the meaning of people's social actions. “Understanding sociology” examines phenomena from the inside, but not from the point of view of their physical or psychological properties, but from the point of view of their meaning.

The purpose of the humanities, according to Weber, is twofold: to provide an explanation of causal relationships, as well as an understanding interpretation of the behavior of human communities. At the beginning of humanitarian research, an ideal-typical construction of an individual historical event should be constructed. M. Weber introduced a methodologically important concept in sociology "ideal type" The ideal type is associated with the category of understanding, since every ideal type is the establishment of meaningful connections inherent in any historical integrity or sequence of events. The ideal type identifies not the traits common to all historical individuals and not the average characteristics, but the typical characteristics of the phenomenon as such. The ideal type should not be confused with the ideal. The ideal type correlates with reality, while the ideal leads to a value judgment. There can be an ideal type of any phenomenon, including a negative one.

To more easily understand what an ideal type is, it is useful to compare it with the types depicted in works of art: type extra person, landowner, Turgenev girl, etc. One must only keep in mind that the creation of types in works of art is the ultimate goal, while in sociological research it is only a means of constructing a theory. Weber especially emphasized, in contrast to positivism, that “ideal types” are not extracted from empirical reality, but are constructed theoretically. They are a special kind of empirical generalization. So, the humanities are both understanding and causal. This is how the two goals of humanitarian research are combined - to explain and to understand. If Comte substantiated the need for sociology as a science, Durkheim - its irreducibility to other sciences, its independent status, then Weber substantiated the specificity of sociology.

It can be considered that in modern sociology both approaches complement each other. It is recognized that sociology “is both understanding and explanatory. Understanding because it reveals the logic or implied rationality of individual or collective actions. Explanatory - because it builds patterns and includes private, individual actions in wholes that give them meaning." Thus, in a full-fledged humanitarian study, the positive (rational) position of the scientist does not necessarily have to oppose the inclusion of his feelings. Holistic research can only be done by a holistic person. Therefore, both methodological approaches can be used together.

• Durkheim E. Sociology. Its subject, method, purpose. P. 13.
• Durkheim E. On the division of social labor. P. 41.
• American sociological thought. M., 1996. P. 528.
• Aron R. Stages of development of sociological thought. M.: Progress, 1993. P. 595.

The expected result of any purposeful activity is some kind of product. Science today is a type of intellectual activity of people, the purpose of which is to obtain knowledge about real world. Science gives people the opportunity to create their own culture and adapt to life in the world around them. Therefore, people study the patterns of both the surrounding space and the Man himself.

Science currently includes about 15,000 disciplines, which are interconnected and interact.

Just as since ancient times it has been customary to divide the world into physical and spiritual components, scientific disciplines are divided into natural and humanitarian. This division has been known since ancient times.

Differences

The sciences, which are commonly called humanities, study the environment created by Man and study Man himself in the aspect of his mental, spiritual, social and cultural activities. Thus, we can conclude that the humanities study everything that makes a person human, personality. Everything related to the semantic aspects of the relationship between Man and Society, Man and Nature.

Natural sciences study the phenomena surrounding Man. The subject of studying natural sciences is nature, nature, that is actual reality, which has always existed, which exists and which will exist regardless of man.

The very existence of humanity involves a continuous struggle for survival. A person is haunted by diseases, hunger, unacceptable natural conditions. Natural sciences help people gain knowledge that can later be used to create latest technologies, securing humanity in an aggressive environment.

It is the natural sciences that create material base of society. Without minimum set Humanity simply would not have survived without natural scientific knowledge. It is believed that this particular type of knowledge appeared in man earlier, even before man mastered the methods of transmitting this knowledge.

From the moment when the first tool was made (most likely by accident), man began experiments aimed at repeating successful experiences and studying patterns material world. People were driven to this by a banal desire to continue life. Therefore, it is generally accepted that existence determines consciousness; the material component allows a person to develop spiritually.

The development of knowledge about the world around us allowed man to learn how to make fire, shoot a bow, tame wild animals and, finally, sow cereals. Moreover, in different corners On Earth, this knowledge was received by people almost simultaneously. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, computer science, cybernetics and many other pillars of progress are an integral part of the culture of mankind - the culture of natural science.

Functions

From the definitions of the natural and human sciences, their functions also become clear. Natural sciences are characterized by description, explanation and forecasting of phenomena of objective reality, knowledge of the actual state of affairs.

At the same time, scientists use the entire accumulated volume of knowledge about nature, about specific planes of existence, accumulated by humanity. Scientists study connections and relationships in the objective world. This enables a person not only to become “at home” in the surrounding reality, but also to purposefully adjust reality to his needs.

Natural sciences are first and foremost accuracy, proven by numerous experiments. The humanities give a person answers to questions about the meaning of this or that phenomenon, reveal the essence of a person’s purpose, the meaning of being, and moral guidelines. The humanities, which received powerful development during the Renaissance, are based on philosophy.

Humanitarian culture is body of knowledge in the field of religion, law, art, history, psychology. The boundaries and generally accepted differences between the humanities and natural sciences are quite arbitrary. At the current stage of development of scientific knowledge, they are characterized by mutual enrichment with subject methodologies and criteria for assessing various scientific results. For example, the laws of dialectics are used in both the humanities and the natural sciences.

Conclusion

The main difference between the humanities and natural sciences can be determined as follows: the purpose of the existence of natural sciences is to know facts, including mainly through measurement, while research in the humanities is aimed at understanding the essence of phenomena and man’s place in the surrounding reality.

Modern scientific knowledge represented by several major categories. Thus, the humanities and natural sciences are distinguished. What are the features of both?

Facts about the humanities

Under humanitarian It is common to understand the sciences that arose during the Renaissance. Philosophers and thinkers of that time were able to restore ancient knowledge about a person - as a subject of creativity and spirituality, capable of developing, reaching new heights in culture, law, political self-organization, and technical progress.

The key tool of the humanities is the interpretation of facts. It can be historical events, social processes, the emergence of influential literary works. In many cases, the interpretation of facts in the humanities is quite difficult to achieve using mathematical methods- using formulas, statistics, modeling. Therefore, to implement it we use:

1. comparative approaches (when some facts are compared with others);
2. theoretical methods (when the interpretation is based on an educated guess);
3. logic (when it is difficult to find a reasonable alternative to the resulting interpretation result).

Examples of modern humanities: history, philosophy, religious studies, psychology, art history, pedagogy. The humanities should be distinguished from the social sciences, which study primarily social phenomena. However, within the framework of the former, tools that are primarily characteristic of the latter can be used.

Science Facts

Under natural It is customary to understand the sciences, the subject of study of which is natural phenomena in all their diversity. These can be physical or chemical processes reflecting the interaction of substances, electromagnetic fields and elementary particles with each other at different levels. This could be the interaction of living organisms in nature.

The key tool of natural sciences is the identification of patterns within the framework of these interactions, compiling them as much as possible detailed description and adaptation, if required, to practical use. This involves the use of more accurate methods - in particular, mathematical and engineering ones. The use of comparative and theoretical tools is often not enough - but they can also be used and play an important role. Logical methods are characterized by very high usefulness.

It is necessary to distinguish natural sciences from technical ones - such as, for example, mechanics and computer science. The latter may be the most important source of tools for the former, but are not considered in the same category with them. It is not customary to classify mathematics as a natural science, since it belongs to the category of formal sciences - those that involve working with specific, standardized quantities and units of measurement. But, as in the case of technical disciplines, mathematical tools play a vital role in the natural sciences.

Comparison

The main difference between humanities and natural science is that the former studies primarily man as an independent subject, the latter studies natural phenomena in their wide variety. The categories of sciences under consideration also differ in their instruments. In the first case, the main method is the interpretation of facts, in the second - the description of patterns characterizing the course of various processes.

Logic is equally useful in both types of sciences. In the humanities, it allows the researcher to interpret this or that fact in the most reasonable way; in the natural sciences, it is one of the tools that can explain this or that process.

Sometimes methods that are more characteristic of the humanities - a comparative approach, the development of theories - are also used in the natural sciences. But the mathematical and engineering tools often used in the natural sciences are rarely used in the humanities.

Having determined what the difference is between the humanities and natural sciences, we will reflect the conclusions in the table.