Historians use primary sources to reconstruct previously occurred events in order to create a clearer picture of the past. Instead, human scientists investigate various aspects of human activity to reveal discoveries that will bring about significant changes in the future. This is presented in the statement that “the historian's task is to understand the past; the human scientist, on the contrary, is trying to change the future.” This seems false considering that both the human historian and scientist require a satisfactory understanding of past events, as their roles require a desire to change the future. The respective areas of knowledge of the human historian and scientist express this through the lens of perception and reason, as they invoke questions of knowledge regarding the past and the future. The statement is subjective, as it does not clarify what exactly qualifies as understanding. Do we all have to find a common agreement for it to be considered an agreement? In terms of history, the information we consider knowledge is collected and interpreted by historians. This suggests that the story can be interpreted but never fully understood. Therefore, the historian is a creator of history rather than a recorder of it as he inevitably uses personal perspective to reach conclusions. Furthermore, there is a knowledge problem since history is simply a selection of information due to filtering of primary sources. Even in the work of historians, there appear to be gaps in the historical record that prevent us from gaining a thorough understanding. Furthermore, the statement is unclear in terms of what exactly constitutes the past, the future, and how we can measure change. However… half of the article… allows us to apply the conclusions of these studies to reality to design future human behavior. After watching footage of Asch's conformity experiments from the 1950s, I was able to realize that this study still has relevance today as individuals are often forced to conform to the ideas of the majority instead of relying on their own intellect. Although historians are required to deduce what is accepted as understanding, they inevitably view history through a modern lens that provides a framework for the future similar to that of human scientists. Therefore, the statement seems to be true to some extent as historians are forced to understand the past while human scientists must try to change the future. However, the past and the future appear to be interchangeable in terms of their importance to both the historian and the human scientist attempting to derive knowledge..