Human and Natural SciencesARE THEY SO VERY DIFFERENT?

A Historical perspective The division between the natural and human sciences and the resulting neglect of the latter by

historians and philosophers of science are the products of late 19th-century shifts in the

classification of knowledge, which remapped the disciplines in order to sharpen the distinction

between the human and the natural realms and therefore between the sciences dedicated to

each. Although the methods and forms of explanation of, for example, evolutionary biology

and historical sociology had more in common than either of them had with physics on the one

hand, or demography on the other, the newly drawn boundary between what the natural and

human sciences divided disciplines once linked by common histories and practices. http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/en/research/projects/DeptII_Da_Natural_Human_sciences (accessed September 2013)

Traditional empiricist view There is no difference - both (must) use the same basic methodology,

“It is important to realize that despite differences of method, interest, technique, subject

matter, and degree, all scientific knowledge must be confirmed or verified; all must be justified

by evidence or good reasons. The criteria for a good hypothesis (that it be falsifiable, simple,

beautiful, general, etc.) apply equally. So do the ideals of science (reliability, precision,

objectivity, testability, comprehensiveness, etc.) and the requirement that the justification for

a claim be unremittingly criticized. Not every scientific explanation satisfies all of these goals

equally well, but the goals are the same for all our organized empirical knowledge.” “The Social Sciences” Man is The Measure: A Cordial Invitation to the Central Problems of Philosophy by Reuben Abel, found on

https://sites.google.com/a/isb.ac.th/tok---mr-0/areas-of-knowledge/human-science/readings-and-video/human-versus-natural-science (Sept 2013)

Opposing position Human and Natural Sciences are essentially different and (must) use different methods

“The human sciences study meaningful phenomena whose nature is decisively different from

the merely physical phenomena studied by the natural sciences, and whose study therefore

require different methods ...... This is not to say that the human sciences do not study an

objective reality about which we cannot have genuine knowledge. “

R.D. Ingthorsson The Natural vs. The Human Sciences: Myth, Methodology and Ontology http://www.academia.edu/3553833/The_Natural_vs._Human_Sciences_Myth_Methodology_and_Ontology (Accessed September 2013)

Let’s consider some claimsDiscuss each of these claims in the light of the two positions outlined.

What examples or situations could you cite in considering each claim?

Are there any other claims or knowledge issues to consider?

Remember: There is no right answer

Experiment and observation In the natural sciences, a hypothesis is verified by experiment - the human sciences cannot experiment.The natural sciences can repeat experiments in order to verify their hypotheses, and can generalize their resultsUnlike physical scientists, human scientists can almost never use controlled experiments to gather facts with which to test theories. They must use whatever facts the world gives them and rely on statistical procedures to draw conclusions.In the natural sciences, phenomena may be studied without regard to their past.

Measurement and LanguageThe raw material of the natural sciences can be measured with precision - concepts in the social sciences are inherently vague and qualitative.

The hypotheses of the natural scientist can be stated with precision and universality. This is not always true of. the social sciences

Explanations, models, laws, predictionsThe astronomer may confidently predict the next solar eclipse but no social scientist can predict with any assurance, so that his hypotheses may be unequivocally verified.“Rockets fly to the Moon; energy is extracted from minute changes of atomic mass. What is the flagship achievement of economics? Only its recurrent inability to predict and avert crises” (Jean-Philippe Bouchaud)No objective analysis of "social reality" can be made because "life, with its irrational reality and its store of possible meanings, is inexhaustible." (Max Weber)

The student and the studied In the human sciences interaction between the scientist and what he studies is unavoidable, between his statements and the people to whom he makes them – the self-fulfilling prophecy.The natural scientist is indifferent to his subject matter; the human sciences are permeated with values.Moral considerations can limit the ability or willingness to experiment in the human sciences“But in biology, too—even in molecular biology—expectations often play a role in bringing about what has been expected”. Karl Popper, talking of the Oedipus effect

An essay What is it about theories in the human and natural sciences that makes them convincing? (2011-12)

NB: Consider at least 2 ways of knowing

Criteria

A Understanding knowledge issues

B Knower’s perspective

C Quality of analysis of knowledge issues

D Organization of ideas