Social scientists would tend to disagree that although social sciences may use different methods that give different results, it does not exclude them from being a ‘science,’ as at the end of the day a ‘science’ is a search for knowledge, and evidently both ‘natural’ and ‘social’ sciences search for knowledge. Social scientists believe that however much the natural scientists wish to prevent it, that there is always a human influence on an experiment. It has often been discussed by social scientists that the social sciences may in fact be more challenging than the natural sciences as they require more insight and creative thinking, and are of more use to us and our lives as humans tend to deal with the social world on a greater basis rather than with the natural world.
Natural Sciences base their research on hard evidence, facts, experiments, observation and constants etc... On the other hand the social scientists would strongly disagree and say that their methods are ineffective. Social sciences base their research on experience and are interpreted by humans. They tend to have more to do with behaviour and interaction and are based on intuition and experience.
A very simple example to make would be: If a social scientist were to go out side, he or she may say that it is could out side. This is because a social scientist bases his experiment on experience, and feeling and human intuition. However if a natural scientist were to go out side he or she may say that it is -12 degrees Celsius out here. This is because a natural scientist bases his experiments on hard evidence, variables, numbers, constants and precision.
The problem of knowledge as is applied to the natural and social sciences is constant. There is a constant problem of knowledge between the two sciences, which therefore brings the sciences to an equal level. For example, dating methods used in natural sciences; they cannot be verified and there fore we already have a problem of knowledge. When looking at social sciences it is also easy to find an example of a problem of knowledge. In social sciences things cannot be quantified. For example one cannot put a quantity to how much they like a teacher, I like Mr. Jones 90%. One cannot quantify things in social sciences, this is because data relies on human interface. So once again we can see a problem of knowledge.
This essay boils down to the question of; can we look at the knowledge given from social sciences and natural sciences as the same?’ My personal response to this is very mixed on the one hand the ‘natural sciences’ and ‘social sciences’ are completely difference as on is based on scientific method and observation. Whereas the other is based on intuition and experience.
However, When looking at the quote “In different areas of inquiry, there are differences in subject matter, technique and complexity, but and claim to knowledge must be validated, verified by evidence, and justified by reasons. There is no basis for excluding the investigation of human actions from the maximal organisation of knowledge.” The reader can see that Abel is obviously supporting the position of the social scientist, and to be perfectly honest I agree with his opinion. Abel is saying, that you need to validate and verify by evidence and justify by reasons. Both Natural sciences and social sciences are able to do this and therefore both are sciences. Since both are sciences they can be equated.
To conclude this essay is easy to say that social sciences and natural sciences are both sciences, which means they can be quantified. Since they can be quantified, we are able to look at the problems of knowledge that they both entail, and it is evident that there are never ending problems with knowledge in both sciences.
865 Words
We see this in “Soft sciences are often harder that hard scientists” written by Jared Diamond.
Abel, R. Man is the measure, New York: 1976, The Free Press.
