- Observations are based on senses,so they are empirical.Knowing that our senses are not always accurate,as a result observation might be unaccurate as well.Sometimes confirmation bias may happen: our brain interpretates the observations for us.Observation need use of equipments which sometimes may complicate all the process.
- Hypothesis follows a deductive to inductive logical process which means general to specific.Th weaknesses of this process is what stands between truth and validity.Hypothesis may be untrue but valid in the same time:
Cactuces need lots of water to survive and grow.
Annie is a Cactus.
So,Annie needs lots of water.
In this case we know that Cactuses don`t need lots of water,but the argument at the end is valid.
- Science method states that no matter how many particular instances of a phenomenon correspond to the general rule,we can never be absolutely sure that we will not find another instance that does not correspond.
- Our knowledge doesn`t necessary has to be true,it can be the hypotheses that survived testing the best as we know that scientists don`t disagree the laws, they disprove the hypotheses.
Other methods used on natural sciences are: quantification,double blind trials and objectivity.
Quantification refers to human acts, known as counting and measuring that map human sense observations and experiences into members of some set of numbers. Quantification in this sense is fundamental to the scientific method. (Wikipedia)
Objectivity in science is the property of scientific measurement that can be tested independent from the individual scientist (the subject) who proposes them. It is intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility. To be properly considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person-to-person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in understanding of the objective world. Such demonstrable knowledge would ordinarily confer demonstrable powers of prediction or technological construction. (Wikipedia)
In Science,Paradigms are the main theories in a subject.It is noticed that dring `normal science` period most of the scientists wee trying to discover a new thing from the paradigm without taking the paradigm granted.According to Popper this is a problem of science as you can`t gain any result,if you are endlessly questioning your assumptions.Thomas Kuhn has argued that history of science is punctuated by revolutions.A scientific revolution happens when scientist replace a paradigm with a new one which changes the way of looking at things.This may be considered a good thing as generates the knowledge,improves it.
Science is communal and self-correcting.Because sooner or later the errors of one individual will be corrected by another individual in the future. In science we can`t say about an hypothesis if it is true or not,if a scientific theory which is consistent and works in practice we should accept it as true and try to replace t in the future with a better one,so we can go closer to the truth.Science is seen as humanity`s success stories.Bertrand Russell said`Science tells us what we can know,but what we can know is little,and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of great importance.` And it is impressive how people know how little are their achievements compared to their ignorance but still they don`t lose their hopes but continue.Albert Einstein observed that `All science,measured against reality,is primitive and childlike.But is the most precious thing we have.`
Human Sciences includes psychology, economics, anthropology and sociology. Its purpose is to reduce the mystery by studying human behaviour in a systematic way. Personally, I study economics and economics is a brach of social science, which tried to observe people’s behaviour when there is a change in prices for example:( if prises of a common product rise it is expected that the demand of buying this product will fall.) These subjects are based on observations and want to achieve theories and new discoveries about human nature. But studying humans is much more than studying animals or other existing things because human have characteristics other species do not have such as self-consiousness,language,reason,free-will and creativity. Human science methodology is based on the same methodology of nature sciences but its content is completely different. Observation humans can be a good solution to see human behaviour in different situations but you can’t observe their minds. Observing people through questionares, interviews, opinion polls can be a good way to learn a lot as: you get primary data, have direct experience, get accurate information even for common situations. But it can be argued that these methods can be unreliable as: people may answer what makes them feel better; they can lie to themselves especially when they are not anonymous (interview) and they tend to change their behaviour.
Another phenomena may happen with loaded question or question which have a hidden assumption : people may get distracted and answer the opposite they did before. For example: In USA the same question about abortion but formulated differently was asked to the same people. the results were completely opposite compared to the first one. A strategy that psychologist do to achieve the observer effect is let cameras or observation equipment for a period of time leaving people to adapt to it and act more naturally or hide the cameras (but this can lead to a conflict as it is not on their knowledge this action).Measuring human sciences is much more difficult than measurering natural sciences as human nature is the most complex one. Human scientist have to deal with complex world of human and difficult situations which are almost impossible to do an experiment. Experiment may sometimes be unreliable as it may distort participant’s behaviour. Experiments which may have a negative impact on participant are banned as a consequence of ethical rules.Human behaviour cannot be controlled because it is always taking a shape that you can`t predict. For example in The Mailgram experiment, even why `the teacher` expressed concern about what he was doing, he had to be reassured that he wasn’t going to be responsible about the fate of `the learner` BUT he never refused to continue giving electric shocks to a stranger and obeyed the white-coats teachers. 1/3 of the participants refused to continue the game till the end. This behaviour was difficult to explain by the psychologist knowing that after the participant knew what were they doing they felt uncomfortable and lost their self-esteem. Main Goal of Human Science is to find laws which describe human behaviour. But it is almost impossible to put human free-will behaviour in a specific law. As Isaac Newton said: I can calculate the motions of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of crowds.` But still we can make accurate predictions about the behaviour of a large population. BUT predictions are sometimes based on trends rather than laws, which usually makes predictions be completely wrong.
It is very difficult to find a constant relationship between natural and human sciences. They change a lot but they have similarities as weel.In natural science in more likely to get to an exact conclusion while for human sciences the only conclusion you can say referring even to Ernest Rutherford is `Some do, some don`t`.It is argued that subject such as sociology, economics and anthropology even why they are a very important source about human condition, they still lack the well-established paradigms that are characteristic for natural sciences. For example: Reductionism: the ability to understand economics in terms of psychology,and physcology in temr of neuroscience etc.Human Sciences usually tend to describe things in terms of their meanings and purposes rather than ther mechanical causes and effects (natural sciences) As Human sciences are more based in meanings are more easily to get misuunderstoods of the behaviour of people as you can`t get into their head; and also they have less universal rules. Huma Sciences tend to be more biased which makes them less scientific compared to natural sciences.Human sciencies aren`t as imperfect or perfect as people say.As they deal with complex situation it is expected that they don`t have the explanaoty power of natural sciences.PERSONALLY,I think that even why Human sciences are less scientific compared to natural ones,natural sciences can never analyse human behaviour in that deep and difficult way Human Science does.But I most accept that both of the sciences are very important in giving us knowledge and generate our brain.
