The ramifications are obvious. According to the declaration, there are more methods and tool parallels than differences between the AOKs in Natural Science and History. In both domains, "similarity" refers to a shared method or strategy for acquiring or interpreting information, while "difference" refers to the reverse. Similarities could apply to a variety of situations. The term does not, however, specify the context in which the parallels have been applied. Since the focus of this essay will be the "Method and Tools'' Knowledge Framework, items that are present in both AOKs will be referred to as similarities, and items that are not present in both AOKs will be referred to as differences. 
The objective of an AOK in natural science is to gain knowledge about the natural world. The key to differentiating "real" science from "good" science is understanding the method that connects all natural sciences disciplines. This approach heavily relies on evidence and reasoning, with each field seeking to provide knowledge regarding one particular aspect of the natural world. Nevertheless, the cosmetics business can distort data and use "scientific sounding language" to promote products, undermining the public's trust in the natural sciences. Inconvenient facts and data may be eliminated from research supported by organizations who stand to gain from its results. Natural science knowledge is not always accurate, and our present understanding of it is dependent on recent discoveries.There may be paradigm shifts and the discarding of some contradictory knowledge when the natural sciences gain more understanding. Establishing standards for knowledge acquisition in the natural sciences is challenging as we approach a turning moment in history and more scientific information carries significant ethical obligations.
The objective of an AOK in history is historical knowledge, historians frequently run against obstacles including a dearth of information, skewed records, and politically motivated misinformation. History is largely preserved via memory and language, with certain cultures employing written and oral traditions. History is frequently presented in textbooks as reality, with marginalized populations frequently omitted. Subjectivity exists in the choice of historical events and interpretations, and history teachings have the power to influence our comprehension. Including a variety of viewpoints helps prevent ethical dilemmas and result in more accurate understanding.
There are a lot of connections between natural science and history. Among them is the idea that historians look for the most unbiased explanation. The majority of academics agree that the goal of scientific explanations is to provide a reason for why a certain event occurred or did not. The public dissemination of scientific and historical findings is the goal of both disciplines, as evidenced by the connections between scientific explanations and human sciences such as sociology and history. In order to increase public understanding, historians compare and contrast scientific findings, assess whether they follow general laws, and provide an explanation for these findings. Another similarity between them is that they both strive to explore and discover new things. However, in this case, historians seek to understand the past and find answers to historical mysteries, while scientists concentrate on developing new things or finding answers to problems for the future.
On the other hand, it could also be considered a difference because historians and scientists may have the same objective of finding one of the past and one of the future. Historians can only explain events that have already occurred; scientists are able to investigate contemporary phenomena and provide explanations for them. Another distinction is that scientists work with objects and phenomena, whereas historians concentrate "fundamentally on human actions." Similarly, scientists attempt to explain "a particular event or phenomenon," whereas historians are more interested in specific historical figures and their accomplishments. The other difference is that scientists temper less with the process of collecting evidence than historians because scientists discover things or work on things that don't have an attachment to their identity or culture. In other words, it is easier for a historian to be biased towards creating history because it could be significant to their identity, such as cultural beliefs and many more.The other difference is that scientists depend on the actual result of the process of the experiment, generally everything, while on the other hand, historians depend on people's perspectives and research, not physical evidence, so sometimes the perspective can be modified or changed, and people's perspectives are different, so the historian gets the opportunity to choose whom perspective is right while they are not even sure what happened in the past themselves or they were alive when it happened to know what happened.
Write me 150 word conclusion of this essay and use tok language