To what extent can we rely on the knowledge provided by human scientists?

International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge

Mario Cabani

LB End of year theory of knowledge essay 2010

To what extent can we rely on the knowledge provided by human scientists?

Human scientists try to explain human behaviour. By formulating theories to predict human behaviour, human scientists then develop solutions for the problems identified by those behaviours. Examples of disciplines that are part of the human sciences include anthropology, psychology and economics. Human scientists are concerned with organisms that are aware of their own existence, in contrast to natural sciences. Also human sciences involve people observing people. As human beings we are very hard to predict, so human scientists can not just explain our behaviour as a natural scientist would explain the behaviour of physical objects or animals. We make decisions consciously and with purpose. In this way, the work of human scientists and the evaluation process that they have to do is very different than the work of natural scientists. Human scientists usually involve their thoughts and experiences when they have to explain human behaviour. So how can we trust human scientists and their statements and how can we rely on the knowledge provided by them?

To trust on the knowledge provided by human sciences we must evaluate its objectivity. Since human sciences involve more variables and much more issues to care about, there are some methods that are used to make the study of people accurate and objective. The outside method involves observing a phenomenon involving human beings, without being personally involved, adding personal opinions and watching from top down. On the other hand, the inside method involves studying the inside members to understand society, relating to individual members and judging their actions from their point of view. In past studies it has been ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

To trust on the knowledge provided by human sciences we must evaluate its objectivity. Since human sciences involve more variables and much more issues to care about, there are some methods that are used to make the study of people accurate and objective. The outside method involves observing a phenomenon involving human beings, without being personally involved, adding personal opinions and watching from top down. On the other hand, the inside method involves studying the inside members to understand society, relating to individual members and judging their actions from their point of view. In past studies it has been analyzed that the inside method is the most convincing way of acquiring knowledge in the human sciences since humans are extremely diverse and without a personal opinion or involvement in the area of study, you cannot determine what exactly is going on. However, the knowledge obtained by using this method can be considered unreliable since investigators can develop an empathy for people being studied, leading to a bias investigation or investigators can be deceived by people being studied. This can make a study lack objectivity and so it would not be reliable. However, since human scientists follow the scientific method, which includes peer reviews, errors and prejudices can be reduced or avoided. The inside method allows the investigator to obtain more details and information about the society and its individuals. It provides a better understanding of each individual, avoiding stereotypes and generalizations.

Another factor that can make people lack confidence in human scientists is the fact that as humans we are not perfect and so judgments done by human scientists can be wrong. This is linked with the fact that there are many interests behind human studies. We just have to look at the work done in political science, which usually involves persuading people and deceiving populations to satisfy political interests. Economists and sociologists can also change some aspects of social and economic impacts in studies of for example how mining would affect communities in order to satisfy the interests of multinational companies or governments. It has also been proven that statistics sometimes do not present reality and that they are manipulated. However, this type of unethical acts can also occur in natural sciences. We know that there exists some control of multinationals over science. Scientist can always be tainted by huge profits which companies can provide if they satisfy their interests. Also natural scientists can change data or reject peer reviews in order to protect their own ideas. This happened with Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s CRU in 2010. He was criticized for basing his theory of world warming from data taken in sparse weather stations in Siberia, where data is sparse. Different peer reviews were presented to him, but he did not accept those reviews as they were criticising him, so he censured the reviews without doing an ethical job. This case tells us that the scientific method in both the natural and the human sciences is vulnerable since some parts of it just rely on trust. We can not completely trust in the scientific method because there are many interests of many scientists and companies behind all the process that lead to unfair practices.

Human scientists have provided us an understanding of how we interact with each other. We know much more about ourselves, our societies and our cultures because of the work done by human scientists. A big part of the knowledge we have nowadays comes from human sciences, so it is necessary for human beings to trust in these studies. We can not just rely on the knowledge provided by natural scientists since we would not be able to understand the behavior of human beings and how they we are linked with our environment and nurture. However, we should question science and not just believe in it without looking for evidence and for a complete picture of what is being presented. We are living in a globalize world that needs human scientists to provide knowledge of different cultures to help societies work together. We also know about the risks of changing traditions and cultures if human scientists get involved in a society. However, risks have always existed in the process of gaining knowledge and they have to be avoided as much as we can, but they also have to be faced in order to improve society. In this way, we can rely on the knowledge provided by human scientists by evaluating its objectivity. Concepts and theories are always improved and extended, so we must consider the fact that human scientists are trying to improve incomplete theories in order to improve human knowledge.

Mario Cabani