Science is defined as “a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject”—a concept seemingly straightforward. In the article “The Dying Russian”, Masha Gessen attempts to explain the phenomena of increased mortality in Russia through the lens of different stems of “science”— anthropology (Michelle Parsons) and economics (Nicholas Eberstadt). Gessen deems Parson’s attempt futile as her primary sources of information (Muscovites) have had their memories transformed by time, by years of social and economic upheaval. Gessen continues his account by examining Eberstadt’s conclusions in respect to the problem at hand. Gessen questions Eberstadt’s efforts to remain unbiased by looking solely at figures and ignoring culture. By contrasting these two different approaches of analysis, Gessen brings light to the Hedgehog/Fox argument. The two autonomous studies lack in the areas the other one excels in. Cultural analysis, although extremely useful in understanding issues on a ground-level, provides little concrete evidence. Statistical analysis, although extremely clear and straightforward, is unable to present enough context. The two are always in conjunction with each other as one, the representative of a hard “science”, apposes the other, an embodiment of a social “science”. The two, regardless, are variations of science.  These instruments may seem like mutually exclusive entities, their coexistence can produce an instrument of analysis that could allow us to go beyond the unreachable. Thus, in order to see the picture, the cultural understanding must enforce the statistical data and vice versa—one must be a fox, skilled in all fields.