Commencing its publication life in 2026, the Journal of Historical Science (Tarihbilim Dergisi) aspires to be a peer-reviewed journal operating at international standards. Our journal adopts history/historicity as its primary axis; concurrently, it pursues a inter-disciplinary publication policy that fosters dialogue across the entirety of sciences without distinguishing between the natural and human sciences. In this sense, the Journal of Historical Science rejects the “two-culture / two-scientist” approach of the philosophy of science—namely, the bifurcation of science into nomothetic sciences (natural sciences) and idiographic sciences (human/cultural sciences)—and opens its pages to all academic disciplines by placing historicity at the epicenter of inquiry. Thus, it endeavors to develop a inter-disciplinary perspective within the context of historical-social realities through the lens of “historical science.”
As the Journal of Historical Science, we anticipate that the “two-culture” approach, predicated on the nomothetic and idiographic divide, causes deadlocks in scientific research; we foresee that the way out of this deadlock lies in the “unity of science / oneness of science” approach. We define this anticipation with the motto “Unity of Science.” We draw attention to the necessity that the “ontological” and “methodological” differences inherent in the nature of science should not precede “epistemological” unity; we emphasize that, in an epistemological sense, there is no fundamental difference between the natural sciences and the human sciences. Within this scope, we conceptualize historical inquiries as “historical science” within the unity/oneness of science and evaluate them within this framework (Reyhan, 2021).
Our logo is an expression of this very approach. Two distinct circles represent the 'two cultures' or 'two sciences' based on the nomothetic and idiographic distinction. In contrast, Tarihbilim Journal, situated at the intersection of these circles, emphasizes precisely this convergence: the epistemological unity of science, the interdisciplinary intertwining of fields, and a synthetic collaboration. This analysis, for our journal, certainly does not exclude inter-disciplinarity—where each discipline utilizes its own method and remains a part of the whole, yet functions within separate sets. In the multi-disciplinary approach, a fragmented wholeness takes the place of the new holistic unity found in the interdisciplinary approach.
Why “historicalscience” (historical science) instead of “historiology” (history+logy=historiology)?
What could be the English equivalent of the “tarihbilim” we propose?
Following English linguistics, we generate the term “historical science” using the adjective form “historical” (with the possessive/belonging suffix “-al”) instead of the noun form “history,” and we conceptualize this not as “historical science” in the traditional sense, but as a unified term: historicalscience. For example, just as Society (n.) leads to social (adj.) and social science leads to socialscience (Redhouse, 1996: 920).
In this sense, we establish a relationship between the word “science” (Latin scientia), meaning “knowledge” or “to know,” and its closest Greek equivalent, “episteme”; thus, we emphasize “knowledge” based on reason and evidence rather than the word “doxa,” meaning opinion. Indeed, in modern English, “epistemology” refers to the theory of knowledge (Redhouse, 1996: 329).
Through this explanation, we differentiate ourselves from the term historiology (history+logy). The suffix “-logy” or “-ology,” derived from Ancient Greek meaning “to speak,” generally expresses a field of science or expertise in a specific study (e.g., biology, archaeology, geology). In this context, historiology—as a branch of science that examines historical events and facts merely as a field of expertise—cannot meet the emphasis we place on interdisciplinarity.
References
Avery, Robert et al. (Eds.). (1996). Redhouse English-Turkish Dictionary.
Reyhan, Cenk. (2021). “Bilimin Birliği: Nomotetik - İdiografik Bilim Ayırımına Tarihbilimsel Bir Reddiye”, Tarihyazımı, 3(1), 1-23.