Exploring the distinctions between the humanities and the natural sciences is significant. Photo：TUCHONG

---

The meaning of the natural sciences is fairly clear, while the connotation and denotation of humanities disciplines are often more ambiguous. Generally, the humanities and social sciences focus on the study of “humans” and their cognition and behavior.  

Some believe that academic endeavors seek innovation, contrasting the dynamic pursuit of innovation in scientific endeavors with what they perceive as the humanities’ tendency to focus on perennial topics. This perspective holds significant weight, prompting an exploration in this article of the distinctions between the humanities and the natural sciences across five key dimensions: object of study, subjectivity, context, knowledge application, and epistemology.

The first distinction lies in the objects studied and the resulting cognitive processes. The natural world is infinite, truly “boundless,” with vast unknown territories beyond the boundaries of human knowledge. Therefore, the natural sciences always face the unknown ahead. Each step forward in the natural sciences builds upon existing knowledge but also ventures into new objects and domains, aiming to progress “from unknown to known” and acquire new knowledge. The humanities, on the other hand, move “from the known to the unknown,” focusing on the known world and seeking to discover the unknown within the essentially unchanging aspects of human nature spanning thousands or even millions of years. Humanities scholars need to continually deepen the “eternal and unchanging” classic problems, reveal the unfamiliar in the familiar, the self-evident behind the unclear, and ultimately transform familiarity into true knowledge and suggestions into truth. Fundamentally, the object of the humanities is human nature.

The second distinction lies in the differences in their respective research subjects. Scientists objectively study nature, while humanities scholars, as the subjects of study themselves, have difficulty separating themselves from their research objects. Humans serve as both the subjects and objects of study in the humanities. 

The third difference is found in how they are influenced by context. Natural sciences can establish rigorous experimental conditions to eliminate the influence of specific contexts and researcher biases on the experimental object, revealing the universality and inevitability of natural phenomena—generalizing from specific instances and predicting future outcomes. In contrast, humanities research faces challenges in replicating the controlled experimental settings of the natural sciences when studying human knowledge and behavior. Instead, they often reveal the “unknown” through iterative strategic interactions. 

The fourth difference is found in the relationship between knowledge and practice. Relatively speaking, the natural sciences represent “knowledge,” while technology (and engineering) focuses on “practice,” resulting in a separation between science and technology. The humanities (and social sciences) encompass both “knowledge” and “practice,” integrating knowledge and practice to reveal and potentially transform human nature. Once individuals accept a viewpoint of the humanities, their research object has changed. The humanities not only have an impact on cognition but also on practice, transforming people and society. 

The fifth and final difference stems from an epistemological perspective concerning the context and types of knowledge. Willing or not, conscious or unconscious, humanities scholars are to some extent situated within various localized knowledge contexts, whose conceptual system bears the unique mark of local knowledge and carries certain inclinations or preferences. The problem here lies in that these localized knowledge systems may differ significantly or even conflict with each other. While the natural sciences also have corresponding contexts (such as paradigms), different paradigms have general knowledge that can serve as the “greatest common denominator,” as well as facilitating communication and exchanges through logic, mathematics, and symbolic computation.

Moreover, the types of knowledge in the natural sciences and the humanities also differ. Formally, knowledge can be categorized as explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. Knowledge in the natural sciences consists of well-defined concepts and symbols, with relatively clear boundaries and a degree of shared consensus among scientists, reducing ambiguity at the conceptual level. In contrast, the humanities, due to the complexity and uncertainty of their research objects, diverse contexts, and practical applications, exhibit deep imprints of tacit knowledge in their knowledge forms. 

In summary, the reason why humanities disciplines are often seen as stagnant is rooted in “what is known.” For thousands or even tens of thousands of years, human nature has remained essentially unchanged, and history has repeated itself time and again—the great thinkers of the humanities have produced insights into human nature that have become “classics” that are difficult for subsequent generations to surpass. 

When it comes to human nature, everyone has something to say, and “constant talk” persists due to the following reasons. 

Firstly, the initial and boundary conditions of the research object vary, and individuals often find themselves in different contexts, which determines that the arguments of the humanities are mostly based on inductive reasoning from limited cases, which is often incomplete. Secondly, new concepts and even new “-isms” continually emerge in the field of thought, prompting the humanities to constantly reassess in new contexts—the “senior” is old, but within these discussions, there is always room for new perspectives. Thirdly, while achieving consensus on “knowledge” is relatively straightforward, “practice” is immersed in a variety of scenarios and is often undermined to varying degrees, making ongoing discussions a logical necessity. Finally, local knowledge, tacit knowledge, and soft knowledge often need to be repeatedly explicated. In addition, the extent of “constant talk” in the humanities varies significantly across different scenarios and contexts. Ignoring or neglecting the foundations and driving forces of productivity, as well as being confined to tradition and “locality,” meaning self-imposed isolation in time and space, will only exacerbate the perception of the humanities dwelling on perennial themes. 

Lyu Naiji is a professor from the School of Humanities at Southeast University. 

Edited by ZHAO YUAN