Wilhelm Dilthey was a famous German philosopher who made the most renowned distinction between human sciences (Geisteswissenschaften) and natural sciences (Naturwissenschaften). Most of his work involves the distinction in terms of the goal, method, and the like in these two fields from epistemological and methodological points of view. This essay critically explores Dilthey's distinction between human and natural sciences as it appears in his philosophical writings.
First, the most apparent divergence is in what these sciences aim to accomplish. According to Dilthey, natural sciences explain phenomena through 'causality' and 'general laws.' They aim to reveal objective facts about the external world by employing rigorous observation methods, measurement, and prediction of a natural occurrence (Dilthey, The Formation of the Historical World 104). On the other hand, the human sciences attempt to comprehend human experiences in a subjective and context-based manner. Dilthey suggests that human sciences deduce meanings from historical, cultural, and social phenomena. This includes empathetically accessing the lived experience of persons and communities, which he refers to as Verstehen (understanding). Whereas natural sciences offer universalization in their universalizing tendencies, human sciences place their emphasis on particularity and individuality as a result of human existence's diversity.
Also significantly different is methodology. Natural science does not rest on metaphysical assumptions; it depends on empirical observation, experimentation, and quantification to yield objective and reproducible results. Striving mainly to establish causality and formulation of the laws of natural phenomena (Dilthey, The Formation of the Historical World 104-107). However, the human sciences are primarily founded upon hermeneutics, or the art of interpretation. According to Dilthey, The Formation of the Historical World, empirical methods cannot exhaust human experiences because they are historically, culturally, and socially determined (106). In this sense, hermeneutics translates texts, symbols, and actions, understanding that insider meanings are constructed depending on the presumptions of internal meaning and that these presumptions are determined by those producing the meaning. As a result, the human sciences are necessarily interpretive, not explanatory.
Additionally, subjectivity becomes central, argues Dilthey, in the human sciences. Subjectivity is removed in the natural sciences to ensure objectivity and reproducibility. Subjectivity is not a limitation in the human sciences but rather is the very thing that needs to be understood. According to Dilthey, The Formation of the Historical World, only if we concede the subjective viewpoints of individuals and their historical situation will we be able to understand human experiences (102). Natural sciences aim for universal truths that stand above personal points of view; human sciences embrace the variability and relativity of human beings. But for Dilthey, this does not reduce the validity of human sciences; it characterizes their subject matter's richness and intricate character.
Further, central to Dilthey’s philosophy is the contextual dependency of the human sciences. Dilthey, The Formation of the Historical World claims that the actions and expressions of a man are temporal and historical (102-107). Thus, they are dynamic and develop, unlike the natural sciences, which are, after time, independent truths and laws that remain the same forever. The human sciences, therefore, demand consciousness of history's continuity and change. Situating a historical text within its specific cultural and temporal context is essential to comprehend that text, but it is alien to the methodologies of the natural sciences.
Hence, Dilthey maintains that the difference between the human and natural sciences is found in their objectives, methods, and epistemological assumptions. Whereas natural sciences attempt to explain natural phenomena by authority of empirical observation and [by authority of] causality, the human sciences seek to explain human experiences by interpretation and empathy. This distinction identifies the particular contribution of each field to our understanding of reality and their variety of approaches to knowledge and knowledge validation.