Comparative analysis of methodological approaches social-natural history (the case of E.S. Klpin) and L.N. Gumilev

The development of modern science toward interdisciplinary puts a problem of relevance of using unconventional methodologies for humanitarian knowledge. This article considers two authors using interdisciplinary methods: L.N. Gumilev, whose views have been criticized by scientific criterions since his first publications, and E.S. Kulpin, who seated the new direction of scientific researches called "Social-natural history" and who opposed that to «traditional history». The choice of these authors is caused by their similarity in conceptions and methodology - the accent is put on natural factors in history , the methodology bases on interdisciplinarity. At the same time the reaction of scientific community to their studies widely varies. Why is one of the theories in fact is beyond the "scope of science" and the other theory is perceived quite tolerantly? The answer to a question is not found in the Russian and foreign science, although the historiography of the theory of L.N. Gumilev is presented in large volume. We will try to answer this question, using comparative analysis of methodological approaches of both theories. The interdisciplinary research requires knowledges in the different branches of sciense. The researcher can solve the problem by himself, if he has all necessary knowleges. According to E.S. Kulpin this variant is not rule, but the exception. Gumilev is an exception, he tried to be an expert in everything that made his work and an assessment of his papers difficult. The Social-natural research is complex and usually requires a team of different specialists. Any member of the team can set the task, but the head or all team members must determine what is needed to solve the problem. It is difficult to say that the methodology of Social-natural history is new in science, it is recognized in many areas of knowledges (for example, the principle of a complementarity which is used in quantum mechanics), but it was not applied for historical researches in such numbers yet. Also it is difficult to call the methodology of Social-natural history unrecognized methods of history: it can met in archeology or in social anthropology, but not always as the main methods. L.N. Gumikv and E.S. Kulpin tried to find a new explanations of old and unsolved problems in interdisciplinary research. However, the methods which L.N. Gumilev attributes to the natural sciences, not always those are. Critics find freely created tables and schedules, and terms of other scientific disciplines are not always justified and adapted for humanitarian research.

Keywords

Authors

References