How Do Historians and Natural Scientists Differ in Their Use of “Explain”?
In Theory of Knowledge, the word explain does not mean the same thing across all disciplines. While both historians and natural scientists aim to make sense of the world, they rely on fundamentally different approaches to causation, evidence, language, and objectivity. Understanding these differences is essential for strong TOK essays and exhibitions, especially when comparing Areas of Knowledge.
Causality: Linear vs. Complex Explanation
Explanation in the Natural Sciences
In the natural sciences, to explain typically means identifying clear, linear cause-and-effect relationships. Scientists seek universal laws or models that apply consistently across time and place. These explanations are often predictive: if the cause is known, the effect can be anticipated.
Scientific explanations are built on repeatable experiments, mathematical relationships, and empirical testing. The goal is generalization rather than contextual understanding.
Explanation in History
Historians use explain in a very different sense. Historical events are rarely attributed to a single cause. Instead, historians explain by analyzing multiple, overlapping causes such as political decisions, economic conditions, social movements, cultural values, and individual agency.
Historical explanation is interpretive rather than predictive. It aims to make sense of why events unfolded as they did within a specific time, place, and human context.
Use of Evidence in History and the Natural Sciences
Types of Evidence
Historians rely heavily on primary and secondary sources such as documents, letters, speeches, artifacts, and eyewitness accounts. These sources must be interpreted, contextualized, and evaluated for reliability.
Ace your exams with RevisionDojo
Thousands of free questions, notes, and flashcards
Get feedback on your EE/IA/TOK essays
Free Jojo AI tutor
Desen
“I got into Brown University with a 44 predicted IB grade, and RevisionDojo was my study buddy especially for IB Chem, Bio, and Math AA HL.”
Istanbul International School
Natural scientists primarily use quantitative data collected through controlled experiments or systematic observation. Evidence is valued for its measurability, replicability, and consistency.
Reliability and Bias
In history, explanation requires constant awareness of bias, perspective, and context. The historian must consider who produced a source, for what purpose, and under what circumstances.
In the natural sciences, explanation aims to minimize bias through standardized methods, peer review, and replication. While bias can still exist, scientific explanation seeks procedural safeguards to reduce its influence.
The Role of Time and Temporality
Chronology in History
Historical explanations often depend on chronological sequencing. Earlier events are shown to shape later outcomes, and understanding causation requires tracing developments over time.
Explanation in history is therefore deeply tied to narrative structure and temporal context.
Timelessness in the Natural Sciences
Scientific explanations are generally time-independent. Laws and models are expected to hold regardless of historical period or location. Time matters only insofar as it affects variables, not the validity of the explanation itself.
Language and Style of Explanation
Narrative Explanation in History
Historians often explain through narrative. They construct coherent accounts that link motives, actions, and consequences. Language is used to convey meaning, significance, and human experience.
Explanation here involves judgment about relevance and importance, not just factual description.
Technical Explanation in the Natural Sciences
Scientific explanation relies on precise, technical language, formulas, and definitions. The emphasis is on clarity, neutrality, and efficiency rather than storytelling.
Meaning is conveyed through models and symbols rather than narrative.
Objectivity and Interpretation
Interpretation in History
Historical explanation frequently involves value judgments, such as assessing the significance of an event or the responsibility of individuals. Different historians may explain the same event differently, based on interpretation and emphasis.
This does not make history unrigorous; its rigor lies in evidence-based argumentation rather than reproducibility.
Objectivity in Science
Scientific explanation strives for objectivity by grounding claims in data and reproducible methods. While interpretation still plays a role, especially in theory building, the aim is to reduce subjective influence as much as possible.
Examples of Historical Explanation
When historians explain the fall of a civilization or the outbreak of a major war, they typically combine political instability, economic pressures, social tensions, ideological movements, and individual decisions. No single factor is sufficient on its own.
Explanation emerges from weighing evidence and constructing a persuasive, contextual account.
Examples of Scientific Explanation
When scientists explain physical motion or biological change, they rely on testable principles, mathematical relationships, and empirical observation. Explanations are validated through consistency, experimentation, and predictive success.
Overlap Between the Disciplines
Some fields blur the boundary between historical and scientific explanation. Environmental history, climate studies, and epidemiology may combine data analysis with historical narrative, showing that the two approaches can complement each other rather than compete.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can historians use scientific methods? Yes, historians sometimes use quantitative data and statistical analysis, but their explanations remain contextual and interpretive.
Do scientists ever rely on context? In applied sciences, context can matter, but the underlying explanation still aims for generalizability.
Why is historical explanation sometimes seen as less rigorous? Because it allows multiple interpretations rather than one definitive law. Its rigor lies in evidence evaluation and logical argument.
Which type of explanation is more useful? They serve different purposes. Science explains how phenomena occur, while history explains why events mattered and unfolded as they did.
Why These Differences Matter in TOK
Recognizing that explain has different meanings across Areas of Knowledge deepens TOK analysis. It shows that knowledge is constructed using different standards, methods, and aims depending on the discipline.
Natural scientists explain by uncovering universal, reproducible laws. Historians explain by interpreting human actions within time, culture, and context. Neither approach is superior; they answer different kinds of questions.
Strengthen Your TOK Analysis With RevisionDojo
RevisionDojo helps IB students compare explanatory approaches across History and the Natural Sciences using TOK-aligned frameworks, guided questions, and practice prompts.
With structured support, students learn not just what disciplines explain—but how and why their explanations differ.
Descubre cómo conectar Theory of Knowledge (TOK) con IB Business Management y desarrolla pensamiento crítico y análisis de nivel 7 en tus respuestas y ensayos.
Aprende a integrar TOK en tus ensayos de IB Psychology de forma natural y analítica, fortaleciendo tu pensamiento crítico y manteniendo claridad académica.
Compare IB Theory of Knowledge and the Extended Essay with the A-Level EPQ to discover which program builds stronger analytical, writing, and research skills.
