Author: Vesna BertonceljSupervisor: Will TomfordSession number: 006494-0002Session: May 2014Date: March 2014Word count: 1.322History and humanities are in the title of the essay declared as being contrary. Their tasks are different: history deals with the past and the human sciences deal with the future. Is the differentiation of these two different knowledge areas really that simple? Or does the historian also contribute to the future like the human sciences? Both areas of knowledge deal with human nature. So to what extent are there parallel lines between these two areas of knowledge? Since at every stage of observation of history and the humanities there are biases on the part of both the researcher and the objects of observation, how can we extrapolate what knowledge is reliable enough to be used to know the past, understand the present and seek change in the future? A historian provides descriptions of the facts and concepts of past events and circumstances. Its main job is also to interpret the past. It does this through methodology, for example by analyzing evidence from multiple sources, evaluating it, eliminating sources of bias, filling in gaps with reason and having the ability to draw conclusions, but can we ourselves apply our contemporary way of reasoning to past events that we want to understand? Historians tend to be as objective as possible. And since the past no longer exists, it cannot be changed and therefore constitutes a fixed meaning of events, but in truth it cannot be understood in this way. A historian is one who chooses which event in the past is significant and can therefore choose the object of observation. He often chooses an event based on his emotions. This is only the beginning of the middle of the article ......the artificiality of the laboratory environment and ethical considerations, because of which many interesting ideas about conducting an experiment cannot be obtained. Sometimes it is also a problem of errors like hasty generalization. Can we therefore reasonably extrapolate the knowledge acquired in the human sciences to the future in a reliable manner? I can conclude my talk by saying that the tasks of the historian and the man of science are to some extent similar, because they are all trying to understand his area of ​​knowledge. They also want changes in the future, but however the historian does not do this concretely but only provides knowledge. The person who obtains knowledge is the one who can conclude to change the future. History and the humanities also both face bias when providing knowledge and therefore may not be as reliable as they should be..