"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything..."
Richard Feynman (Theoretical Physicist)

"To be clear-headed rather than confused; lucid rather than obscure; rational rather than otherwise; and to be neither more, nor less, sure of things than is justifiable by argument or evidence. That is worth trying for."

Sir Geoffrey Warnock

The first citation is from a very famous physicist, the second is from a philosopher, who was Vice chancellor of the University of Oxford in the first half of this century

My interpretation: there is no principal difference between humanities and especially philosophy on one side and science on the other side. Both are products of the human intelligence, both aim to understande "was die Welt im Innersten zusammenhaelt" as Goethe said.
For both is true what has been said by Feynman and Warnock. Who claims a principal difference between science and humanities (.."die Natuwissenschaften beziehen sich nur auf den Bereich der Notwendigkeiten....", "...Geisteswissenschaften sind nicht wirkliche Wissenschaften" o.aeh.) means ill. The ill meaning: giving absolut security to science and to put so science in the role of religion. Scientific theories as "the moon will not fall down to earth" are normally inductive from experimental evidence and they are valid only as long there is no evidence to the contrary, scientific theories can't have absolute security by their very nature. And this is true also for theories and doctrines of philosophy/humanities: They must undergo the proof of evidence and rational discussion. Statements like "there is animus separated from matter or "God exists" have to get the same verification as statements like "iron melts at 1500°C" or "the sun is rotating around the earth"