The problem of determination of the scientific character of interdisciplinary approaches in history

The article discusses the question of the criteria of the scientific character applied to approaches which use research methods atypical for humanists. As examples of such approaches, this article considers two authors using interdisciplinary methods: L.N. Gumilev, whose views have been criticized by scientific criteria since his first publications, and E.S. Kulpin, who created a new direction of scientific research called "social-natural history" and opposed it to "traditional history". The choice of these authors is caused by their similarity in conceptions and methodology - they focus on natural factors in history, their methodology bases on interdisciplinarity. At the same time the reaction of the academic community to their studies varies widely. Why is one of the theories in fact beyond the "scope of science" and the other theory is perceived quite tolerantly? The answer to the 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. Also Michael Shermer's criteria which can be applied to these two approaches are considered. They help to learn why the reaction of the academic community to the similar theories differs significantly. Michael Brant Shermer is an American science writer, historian of science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor-in-Chief of its journal Skeptic. The journal largely publishes investigations of pseudosci-entific and supernatural claims. It studies the question of demarcation of science and pseudoscience at present. In November-December 2001, two issues of the journal Scientific American published Michael Shermer's article (in two parts), "Balonely Detection. How to draw boundaries between science and pseudoscience". In the article, he offers 10 questions to ask when encountering any claim. The first of these questions is applied to the theories of L.N. Gumilev and E.S. Kulpin. In the same way it is possible to apply the other questions, and only together they can if not to give the final answer to the demarcation problem yet to shed a little more light on such a confusing and ambiguous question.

Keywords

Authors

References