On the Difference Between Natural Sciences and Human-Created Sciences

Preface

This semester, a new HTML course was introduced. For me, it felt like exactly what I needed at the right time, the same applies to the Python course as well. Since I had already been exposed to programming more than twenty years ago, I picked up Python relatively quickly.

HTML, however, was different. I had encountered it before in various contexts, for example when checking visa status and looking into backend data, where the code I saw was essentially HTML. Yet I had never truly understood it. Even after some brief self-study and reading multiple Chinese explanations, I still could not grasp what it fundamentally was, nor form a clear, structured understanding.

Even after two weeks into the course this semester, I still had many unresolved questions. Eventually, with the help of AI, after nearly two thousand exchanges over half a month, I reached a moment of realization. At that moment, many previously accumulated “pieces of wood” were ignited at once, including memories from years ago when I had attempted to learn HTML. Later, more pieces were ignited, eventually leading to this article.

In the first few weeks of last semester, I already had a vague sense of the difference between Eastern and Western education, but I could not articulate what that difference was. I only felt that I was somehow closer to knowledge itself. When I learned about the historical development of certain technologies, I felt as if I could almost touch them. This was a feeling I had never experienced before in my previous learning journey.

I carried this question with me and kept reflecting on it, until this month, when I was finally able to express it in a way that satisfies me.

My Classification of Knowledge

Before presenting my viewpoint, some framing is necessary.

I divide all disciplines into two categories: natural sciences and human-created sciences.

I deliberately avoid the term “humanities” because I find it ambiguous. Instead, I use “human-created sciences” to emphasize that these fields exist because humans created them.

Natural sciences are those that exist independently of humanity. Whether humans exist or not, these disciplines remain. Humans do not create them; we discover them. Physics and chemistry, for example, describe elements and laws that exist regardless of human awareness. Atoms, particles, and physical laws are not human inventions; they are discoveries.

Even medicine, in my classification, belongs to natural science. Diseases, biological processes, and physiological mechanisms are not created by humans. We observe, categorize, and refine our understanding, but always within a framework that is not human-made.

Human-created sciences, by contrast, exist only because humans exist. Without humans, these disciplines would not exist. Philosophy, law, music, art, and even most forms of technology, including computer science, fall into this category. These fields are deeply tied to human activity and intention.

This classification is not meant to be exact. The precision of the boundary is not the point. What matters is the underlying distinction it highlights.

Differences in Learning Processes

For these two categories, I assign different keywords:

Natural science focuses on discovering patterns.
Human-created science focuses on understanding causation.

Since natural sciences are not created by humans, the learning process is exploratory. We observe, identify patterns, verify them, and refine our understanding. The periodic table and physical laws were not invented; they were discovered. Even when we advance technology, we are still working within an existing framework.

Human-created sciences are fundamentally different. While patterns may exist, they are not inherent; they are constructed. These fields are alive in the sense that they are shaped by human decisions and history.

This leads to the key point: when learning human-created sciences, the core is understanding why things are the way they are.

Every system, concept, or structure has a historical cause. Whether it arises from necessity, coincidence, or convention, it has a traceable origin. Learning should focus on why something evolved into its current form, why it was designed that way, and why it is named as it is.

In these fields, answers to “why” questions almost always exist, often in the form of stories.

This difference fundamentally changes how these subjects should be learned. Mixing the approaches leads to inefficiency and, more importantly, a loss of engagement.

In my view, a major issue in certain educational approaches is treating all subjects as if they were natural sciences. Everything becomes about identifying patterns, memorizing them, and applying them mechanically. This creates a learning process that feels detached, impersonal, and devoid of meaning.

You receive knowledge, but you do not feel connected to it.

In contrast, when human-created sciences are taught through context, history, and narrative, they become immersive. You feel as if you are part of the process, as if you are discovering the ideas yourself. This sense of participation creates engagement and motivation.

For example, when I learned networking, a key concept was the OSI model. Traditional materials often present it in a rigid, abstract manner, full of terminology but lacking context.

However, in my actual learning experience, the instructor began with history and storytelling. Who did what, when, and why. How problems emerged, how solutions were debated, and how systems evolved. We explored why IP addresses are structured the way they are, how subnet masks came to be, and how the OSI model reflects real-world needs.

Through simulations, analogies, and role-playing, the concepts became tangible. This is fundamentally different from memorizing static definitions.

I used to hear criticisms that Western educational materials feel simplistic, almost like children’s stories. I did not understand that before. Now I do. When knowledge is presented without context, it becomes inaccessible. When it is presented through narrative, it becomes intuitive.

What I had previously perceived as an undefined difference in educational approaches is, in fact, the difference between passive pattern recognition and active experiential understanding.

Practical Implications

What does this distinction mean in practice?

It means that at the beginning of learning, one should identify the nature of the subject. However, the classification itself is not the key point. What matters is recognizing the importance of understanding causation, and the role of immersion and engagement in the learning process.

One can even approach natural sciences from a human-centered perspective without issue. But applying a purely pattern-based approach to human-created sciences leads to sterile and disengaging learning.

Learning is dynamic. These categories are not strictly separated. At different stages, different approaches may be more effective.

The goal is to make learning engaging, to increase participation, and to connect with the broader context of human knowledge and experience.

Stop relying solely on memorization. Seek causation. Listen to the stories behind the knowledge.

In doing so, knowledge may enter the mind in an entirely different way.