What is it about theories in the human sciences and natural sciences that makes them convincing?

International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge

Sergio Rodriguez Jodar TOK Essay

Many people don’t want to be convinced, no matter how good the evidence and data is. They much prefer to turn away especially if it contradicts a cherished belief and particularly a religious faith. But, many others will be convinced of a theory especially when it is supported with hard evidence from observation, mathematical and scientific processes. Of course, even the good theories are open to being replaced by other related but better theories as observation and evidence accumulate over time, for instance Newton's by Einstein's, so there should always remain an element of doubt as to whether a theory is a complete description, and that all the evidence has been gathered. Usually people won’t believe the words of everyone, people commonly belief these theories because a “smart” person such a scientist will state it, and the simple reason of being a scientist gives you much more credibility.Sometimes it’s the evidence from which they're derived and by which they are supported or refuted, what makes theories in natural and human sciences so convincing. For example, the television advertisement of the drink “Actimel”, the supposed benefits range go from reducing the incidence of diarrhea and rhinitis reduction for young children, to improvement of the immune function in adults and seniors and reduction of duration of winter infections for elderly. But anyone could say that… the difference with this product is that there is, proof, scientific research and evidence. In the TV advertisement a guy states that 9 out 10 subjects feel the difference when consuming, but, how can we believe this statement without any proof, just because the scientist on TV says so?Hempel´s philosophy of science argues that crucial tests are not sufficient enough to prove a given hypothesis or to disprove them. Hempel states what some may believe why a crucial test can prove or disprove a hypothesis’. If there are two competing hypothesis which involve the same subject and no available evidence favors one or the other, then there exists a test, which will produce conflicting outcomes for the different hypotheses. This test is the so-called crucial test would then presumably refute one hypothesis while supporting the other.Darwin's 'Theory of Evolution', for example, states natural selection. “ by which evolutionary occur in living organisms over of years. , the organisms well adapted to their survive better than those who are not and are to their genes to many more offspring. As this process repeats over hundreds of thousands of years and the less-fit organisms become extinct, it appears as if nature '' certain organisms over others in the environment to continue”.This theory is now regarded as fact by many even though there are large gaps in the prehistorical fossil record showing how natural selection works. More recent evidence from genetics has strengthened Darwin's theory, and few would doubt the theory is very strong, unless a religious belief gets in the way.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

This is a preview of the whole essay

Theories in human and natural sciences used to follow this methodology to finally convert the theory in a fact and convince people about it.
But actually, people exploit the media to make consumers buy a specific product such as a shower gel for example, when they use scientific language and statements such as “Scientifically proven” “9 out of 10 people think this product is the best” that are not proven to persuade consumers.

Nothing, no matter how scientifically proven, is ever a hundred per cent true. Even the laws of science may be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. Einstein’s theory may be disproved at any moment by anyone. This is what gives entrance to doubt which is key to prove theories. The natural science includes subjects such as physics, chemistry and biology which they focus into a different aspect of nature. But I believe that, proving a scientific hypothesis does not require doubt. It requires methodology. "Peer review" is not about doubt what is under review, it is about demonstrating the validity of the proof offered for a hypothesis.
For example If you are a policeman and a suspect tells you something, your experience and training may tell you when to doubt him, but as the police that is on TV say when questioning even the family members, "We just want to rule out the innocent people." This act needs no doubt; it requires methodically going over all the details for their validity.
This more accurately is described as Karl Popper’s theory of ‘falsifiability’. Popper also believed and questioned scientist’s method of testing, which can as he described be made to suit one’s hypothesis. ‘Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again’. In other words, if a test has not been correctly and fairly executed it will easily be disproved by another more controlled test. In day-to-day life and the world outside of massive scientific discoveries, we come across adverts on TV and billboards that claim to, in the case of the ‘Power Balance Bracelet’, enhance your ‘strength, flexibility and balance’ or in other examples a shampoo that makes your hair ‘extra shiny and smooth’ as I mentioned before. These claims are certainly not based on ‘good science’ that is controlled and fair but rather on ‘bad science’ that ignores all tests that don’t prove it to select the data that proves it.
Geocentric astronomy for example, is very convincing because, if you stand on the ground and look up the sky and notice how the Sun, Moon, Planets and Stars move across the sky, it’s obvious that everything is moving around. Still, many years had to pass to completely convince people about things that now look basic, e.g. the earth is round, the sun is 109 times bigger than earth… Why would anyone say this is wrong?

It also depends on beliefs. People over the world have different believes, depending on the country they live or their religious influence. If you do not want to believe in God then why would you believe in the creation of science? Anything that says "No God did it" would be appealing to them and would be more convincing.
Can you test evolution? Can you test creation? Neither can be done so whichever one you believe is the one you will defend.

So, what makes human and natural science theories so convincing? Commonly are, proof, research and evidence the keys to convince people. A theory is only as good as the evidence that supports it. If you want to know how convincing a particular aspect is then have a look in to the research history and see how it is backed up.
But it can also depend on the believes of each person as mentioned before, if someone really beliefs on a theory, even if there is no proof, testing or science method supporting the theory they will still strongly belief the theory. For example, if a Spanish person really loves his country and someone states on TV that Francisco Franco was a good dictator and improved the Spanish economy discarding the thousands of people he killed, a lot of Spanish people will agree even without knowing the Franco`s history.

Bibliography:

Source:

Page of