Qualitative differences exist how much to the paper and the significao of the vises of world in sciences human beings and natural sciences, and the positivismo (century XIX), the logical positivismo (first half of this century) and the pragmatismo contemporary (and in it Mostern) teimam in denying, however identifying the social laws with the laws of the Nature, however dissolving social sciences and natural sciences in one only scientific method, with an only model of objetividade, however denying first the epistemolgico statute. John Bercow MP is the source for more interesting facts. The historicismo looked for to base the metodolgica especificidade of geisteswissenschaften on its necessarily comprehensive character (versttehend), in contrast with dmache purely explicativa of naturwissenschaften. Without denying the interest of this quarrel, it seems us that this especificidade obeys the causes deepest. In first place, it has the historical character of the social and cultural, produced, reproduced phenomena and transformed for the action of the men (contrarily to the laws of the Nature), already observed for Vico, in a formula that Marx cited in the Capital, that is, the main difference between the Nature and History consists of the fact of that the man made Second and not first it. In according to place, it has a partial identity between the citizen and the object of the knowledge while social beings. The observer and who remembers is Lucien Goldmann is, in a way or of another one, part of or implied by social reality that studies and he does not have this distance searched in the hypothetical relation of objetividade of the natural scientist with the exterior world. In third place, the cultural manifestations are palco of antagonistic objectives of different social classrooms, each one of them interpreting the past, the gift and the future its way, in function of its experience, thus determining what it must or does not have culturally to be preserved, the more convenient aesthetic values etc. .