“What are the main difficulties human scientists confront when trying to provide explanations of human behaviour? What methods have been invented to circumvent these difficulties and to minimize their influence on the results that are obtained?”
Although many people in the field of human sciences try to get their disciplines to be recognized as pure sciences, there are many differences that distinguish the natural sciences from the human sciences. There is a certain kudos that comes with the natural sciences that people in the human sciences crave, but human sciences can never be like the natural sciences.
This is what causes there to be difficulties with human scientists trying to explain their science. They lack the definite, and factual ground on which the natural sciences are based. When a natural scientist hypothesises that when he heats some water to 100 degrees, it will boil. And then after an experiment, it is shown that it does, one can not argue that perhaps on another day the water wouldn’t feel like boiling at 100 degrees, or that perhaps it was only boiling at that temperature because there were people watching. Water boiling at 100 degrees is a scientific fact. It will occur every time the experiment is carried out. However, in the field of human sciences, these facts do not exist, and this makes it very difficult for a human scientist to prove any of his theories, or speculate on situations with any authority. The reason for this is that the study of human sciences involves, obviously, human behaviour. Human behaviour does not follow the same patterns that are observed with particles of matter, or certain metals, it is almost totally unpredictable.
However, the human sciences do use similar methods of attaining knowledge to the natural sciences. The methods by which the human scientist attains knowledge has the same basic principles to that of the natural scientist. They have hypotheses which they test through observing, and analysing their observations. However, in the natural sciences, the observer is quite distinct from the experiment, as an astronomist is distinct from the planets and stars that he is observing. Whereas, in the human sciences, a human is the observer, and humans are the experiment. This complicates things. In every science there are theories. In the natural sciences these theories can be proved true or false, and therefore it can be determined whether these theories have an effect the result of the experiment.
The development of psychology like all other sciences started with great minds debating unknown topics and searching for unknown answers. Early philosophers and psychologists such as Sir Francis Bacon and Charles Darwin took a scientific approach to psychology by introducing the ideas of measurement and biology into the way an indi...
Science is the knowledge gained by a systematic study, knowledge which then becomes facts or principles. In the systematic study; the first step is observation, the second step hypothesis, the third step experimentation to test the hypothesis, and lastly the conclusion whether or not the hypothesis holds true. These steps have been ingrained into every student of science, as the basic pathway to scientific discovery. This pathway holds not decision as to good or evil intention of the experiment. Though, there are always repercussions of scientific experiments. They range from the most simplistic realizations of the difference between acid and water to the principle that Earth is not the center of the Universe. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein depicts this very difference in the story of Victor Frankenstein. A scientist who through performing his experiments creates a monster which wreaks havoc upon humanity. Frankenstein concentrating wholly upon discovery ignores the consequences of his actions.
This essay examines the advantages and disadvantages of using a method primarily for gathering research on human subjects that can be examined for later use. It will give a basic outline of the methods of investigation, their uses and their suitability. I will also look at the scientific method as a whole and examine the criticisms of this method using the writings of Hume and Popper.
The aim of this essay is to analyse four theoretical approaches to psychology, including psychodynamic, humanistic, cognitive and behavioural. Analysing each approach in detail and identifying key features the approach uses to explain human behaviour. This essay will also analyse how successful each approach is in it methods, evidence gathering techniques and analyse how it can be applied to giving reasons for particular human behaviours. As well as analysing each approaches failings in it theories, methods and evidence gathering techniques.
The major difference between History and Human science is way in which the scientist uses tools while the historian uses facts and figures. Feyerabend explains that an allegory presented by the human scientist depends on egotism, ideals, and the perspective of other shape of knowledge, and are not enveloped by method, evidence, reason or argument (Anderson 259). There is a big debate to whether social science is actually a science. J.S.Mill believes that while we can justify and discover unpretentious regularities in the physical world, we can also explore the connections between actions thoughts through Mill’s Method on causation (Salmon). This allows us to interpret the change in human behavior over a period of time. Human science can become exact to physical science as human behavior can cause unknowable circumstances (Salmon).
How do we explain, predict and control human behavior? This question remains a central underlying theme within psychology as a whole. Few specific branches of psychology have attempted to integrate multiple perspectives within their fields of research. Evolutionary psychology appears to be unique in this endeavor, and as the following researchers point out, “Evolutionary psychology is the long-forestalled scientific attempt to assemble out of the disjointed, fragmentary, and mutually contradictory human disciplines a single, logically integrated research framework for the psychological, social, and behavioural sciences—a framework that not only incorporates the evolutionary sciences on a full and equal basis, but that systematically works out all of the revisions in existing belief and research practice that such a synthesis requires” (Tooby & Cosmides, 2005)
The issue shall discuss the various differences between science and other types of knowledge and discuss the argument whether the science can rely without the separate theories posted by non-scientific educational bodies. ...
Up until the sixteenth century, people believed that God could explain all actions. In general, science did not really exist. People simply looked to the Bible for reassurance about then unexplainable phenomenon. With the development of a scientific method and the industrial revolution, people began to recognize reason in their world through science. In the present day, the general public in their quest to discover all of natures secrets depends on science and its reason. Rogets Dictionary declares that science includes the observation, identification, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Science tries to describe nature through all of these methods. It seems that every day a new study is published about the relationship between nature and humans. Scientists have explained and improved many aspects of human health and the human body, especially in the twentieth century. In 1936, Dr. Alexis Carrel developed the artificial heart. In 1937, insulin began to be used to control diabetes. In 1943, penicillin was discovered. In 1954, Jonas Salk inoculated children with the polio vaccination. In 1970, scientist at the University of Wisconsin completed the first complete synthesis of a gene. In 1978 the first "test-tube baby" was born in England and finally, in 1980, the Wor...
Psychologists are primarily engaged in the task of explaining behaviour, rather than merely cataloguing it. The difference between theory and description – “why” versus “what” – echoes the difference between science and common sense. Common sense certainly helps describe what takes place in behaviour, but doesn’t compel us to understand why it takes place. The develo... ... middle of paper ... ...
When focusing on the human sciences and natural sciences, one might wonder why we believe what we believe. In general, human science can be defined as a social science, or anything that deals with human behavior in its social and cultural aspects (Bastian 190). Natural science is more often thought of as "regular" science. It is an organized undertaking that focuses on gathering knowledge about the world and condensing that knowledge into scientific laws and theories that can be tested (Bastian 153). Theories in these two types of sciences are often convincing because of the observation that takes place, the empirical evidence, and the ability to put the theories and laws to the test. This knowledge by description, which is defined as public knowledge that is expressed as facts, as well as knowledge by acquaintance, knowledge from familiarity or experience, can also be contributing factors in why we believe what we believe (Bastian 18). However, there are some knowledge issues, as well as counterclaims that may interfere with someone’s belief and perspective on a certain topic. Also, some of our ways of knowing can play a role in different interpretations of theories in these sciences. These aspects can help answer the topic question of what it is about the theories of human sciences and natural sciences that make them so convincing.
As for the human sciences, theories cannot always be tested. Sometimes logic and inferences must be used in order to come to a conclusion. Reason and emotion play a significant role in how persuasive a theo...
The human sciences and natural sciences are considered knowledge by many worldwide, as their arguments having convinced people one way or another. While the natural sciences focus on swaying belief by showing duplicable evidence through a strict and standardized methodology, the human sciences focus on explaining how things are and how they came to be using logic, reason, and an understanding of human behavior.
‘Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences’ (Derrida, 1978: 278 –293) may be read as the document of an event, although Derrida actually commences the essay with a reservation regarding the word “event”, as it entails a meaning “which it is precisely the function of structural – or structuralist – thought to reduce or suspect” (278). This, I infer, refers to the emphasis within structuralist discourse on the synchronous analysis of systems and relations within them, as opposed to a diachronic schemata occupied with uncovering genetic and teleological content in the transformations of history.
Because a lot of the information gathered in this area of knowledge is obtained by observing human behavior, there are many limitations to this field of study. Beginning in the observation stage, there are three main limitations. While we may be able to observe human behavior, we have no way of knowing exactly what is going through a person’s head at the time of experiment, which rules out some forms of study. However, if the experiment allows a subject to speak about what they are thinking about it still leaves room for a subject to lie if they so choose. Which leads into the next limitation, humans tend to be effected by the observer effect; when subjects are observed they tend to act differently than when acting normally which can affect the study. Another limitation in observation is that the questionnaires given to subjects can be misleading or biased to one side. Because humans have an intense need to seem normal, known as the social phenomena, subjects may tend to lean towards the side that seems most positive, or the side that most other people would
To consider a theory as truthful, it must be convincing which means the theory must stand the challenges that may occur such as persuading people for it being true, without any questioning about its value. Every individual will be convinced in a different type of way on different levels. For example, when one considers the large influence of media on our society today, some may think the news is as accurate as possible, and think every thing that is said must definitely be true. Only very basic descriptions and explanations may be required to convince someone that something is true or not. For others, detailed explanations with supporting facts may have to be provided, for them to believe what they hear, even if the theory is completely accurate. Another factor that is relevant is whether the individual is influenced by their subconscious tend or their intuition, this means whether they want to believe in the theory or not. Emotional bases and using reasoning are another two factors that may influence our beliefs. When looking at natural science, emotion does not play a large role, but rather reasoning because natural science is based on facts rather than individual interpretatio...