Comparing History and Human Science

Although historians use resources and knowledge to summarize the history of the existence of humanity, human scientists study human behavior and our way of life. They focus on these areas and provide information to each other. But historians will also anticipate their understanding of the past with a view to the future. Similarly, human scientists may focus on today's human behavior and compare it with the past. Because, when we see human science, historians consider it a useful term for science. The theme is "human" (Smith).

The history of science is a study on the development of science and scientific knowledge including natural science and social science. Science is a collection of experiences, theories, and practical knowledge about the natural world, created by scientists who emphasize the observation, interpretation and prediction of phenomena in the real world. In contrast, scientific historiography studies the method used by scientific historians.

• Does scientific knowledge progress? Does scientific knowledge grow constantly? In this respect, how does natural science compare with other knowledge fields such as history, humanities, ethics, art, etc? Is there "an end" in science? In other words, can we gain level knowledge that all scientifically important things are known? If so, what about the results? • Can you say that most scientific research exceeds the realities and concepts of the world's daily experiences such as the nature and behavior of electromagnetic fields, elementary particles, and spatiotemporal continuum? What is the substance of a scientist? Do you have a practical interpretation model or theory (eg Higgs boson, selfish guided child), or will it be useful to predict and control the natural world? What are the actual problems of these entities that may affect scientific understanding and understanding of the public? What?