We can assume that there are actually many more criteria for distin guishing between prehistory and history than we can cite at present. In this respect, new discoveries are yet to be made. However, the distinctive features of each of these periods that are known to us, as well as those still unknown, must indubitably leave their mark, exerting an influence in all walks of social life, That is to say, if any social phenomenon is common to both pre-communist and communist times, its prehistorical aspect will be intrinsically different from its historical one.
Clearly, this rule also holds good for science. Granting this, it can be expected that science in historical times will present characteristics distinct from those of science in pre-communist society. These charac teristics are already beginning to take shape and to have a growing effect on the specific features of scientific progress, as the movement from pre history to history is in full swing. It thus follows that if we are to study the specific features and regularities of contemporary natural science, we cannot abstract ourselves from these processes. On the contrary, we must place them at the forefront of our investigations. In parallel to the history and prehistory in the evolution of society as a whole, it is necessary to distinguish between the prehistory and true history of science, a social phenomenon. This will provide new clues for the proper interpretation of the present-day trends in the development of scientific thought, experimen tation, and organization.
It is possible to mention quite a number of features of science which are perceptibly changing as the time of true history draws closer. Thus, for instance, until recently, the various branches of natural science (as well as the individual scientific disciplines within them) were tenuously or not at all connected. Nowadays, we can see a rapprochement between different sciences, sometimes quite removed from each other. These interpenetrate and new "hybrid" sciences are created at the boundaries where two or several old ones meet. This is quite a marked tendency, which permits us to conclude that scientific enquiry is ripening into a synthesizing, comprehensive, and highly dynamic approach to the study of nature. The same marked tendencies are noted in the transformation of science into a direct productive force, the industrialization of natural science, the multiplying uses of mathematics and cybernetics, etc. Each one of these particular features deserves
investigation by large scientific teams, and obviously exceeds by far the scope of a single article.
We will dwell on one particular process, which may be referred to as the cosmization of science, i.e., the transition from a purely terrestrial view of nature to a cosmic outlook. Analysis shows that this may be one of the major developments of scientific knowledge as society proceeds from prehistory into history. The emergence of natural science into the cosmic age of its existence is a dominant tendency, which has an effect (direct or mediated) on all the characteristics of contemporary scientific progress. The cosmization of scientific knowledge is a relatively recent development.
At its inception, in antiquity, in the Middle Ages and to a certain extent in modern times, science was geocentric. Its approach to the study of the phenomena and laws of nature, its methods of investigation, indeed its very interpretation of the initial propositions and end results were primarily terrestrial. Matters pertaining to the heavens, to the "universe at large", were mainly the occupation of philosophers. Ideas about cosmic processes and their possible influence on terrestrial occurrences were purely speculative. Science was primarily concerned with terrestrial things and was earth bound. This geocentricity of science was vividly embodied in the Aristo telian teachings, concerning the two pairs of opposing "primary qualities" and the four elements (earth, water, air, fire) on which all of observable reality was based.
It is true that the old science did not present an unrelieved geocentric landscape. The most notable exception was, of course, astronomy, whose eyes were turned toward the heavens. However, the cosmic content of astronomical science was quite limited in scope. Astronomy was fettered by terrestrial concepts, which obscured from view the true nature of its observations, as its theoretical basis was geocentrism interwoven with anthropocentrism. This science finally crystallized into the Ptolemaic system; the cosmos was not viewed as such, but was seen through terre strial eyes. These ideas were accepted as the truth and no alternative was recognized. The heliocentric system of Aristarchus of Samos was considered heresy, for it contradicted everyday (i. e., "purelyterrestrial" ) experience.