Dear All,
We are reviving the item on this blog called "question of the week". Here is this week's question:
"When comparing areas of knowledge, it is clear that the human sciences are the poor relations of the natural sciences. They struggle to apply the scientific method, and fail to produce reliable theories or laws." Do you agree with this?
We expect everyone to contribute to this discussion over the next 7 days. Remember that your contributions to this blog are factored into the semester assessment, and that these discussions are a rich source of material for your own thinking and other assignments.
I agree with this to a large extent. The only experiences I've had in the human sciences is with economics and one of the first topics I learned was "Economics as a science" and "The application of the scientific method in such a science". Certainly it is inevitable for the economist to have problems when applying such a method especially when he is dealing with human behavior. With human behavior, generalizations will almost always be inaccurate because there will definitely be far too many exceptions to that rule. I've constantly heard the phrase "ceteris paribus" which means "all other things being equal" in economics class which is too big an assumption to make since far too many factors are ignored. These theories, based on so many assumptions, are also not reliable because the world is terribly erratic and unpredictable. Take the credit crunch for example; it had economists searching desperately for answers since many of their predictions and laws had been overturned by this economic catastrophe.
ReplyDeleteI however blame society to some extent.I honestly believe that if years ago and even today, the stereotype of the natural sciences being superior to all others was uprooted, then subjects like history, economics and geography will not feel the pressure of classifying themselves as "sciences". Also they won't have to impose on themselves the scientific method and will perhaps find a different method of tackling research in their areas of study.
This is my opinion and I'm sure others may have different sentiments but I am definitely tired of spending weeks trying to understand a theory in economics, only to be told at the end that it does not apply to the real market.
I believe the inconsistency of the human sciences to produce 'reliable' results and their inability to employ the scientific method does not make them the weak link in the knowledge family.
ReplyDeleteTo start with, the scientific method is not the best way to obtain pure consistent knowledge in some instances. Take soccer for example,the scientific method cannot be used to judge fouls - it just isnt right for that case. In the same way, it is rather possible that the human sciences are yet to have an efficient means of obtaining knowledge and they just cling on to the scientific methodsince it is the best they have for now. Who knows if there is a HUMAN SCIENTIFIC METHOD out there!
About reliability of results, human beings are too capricious and intelligent to control or to be tied down to a formula. This explains why there are so many theories for some phenomena, e.g there are atleast 10 theories of migration because one theory alone can't exhaust all the reasons and patterns humans beings choose to migrate by.
In totality, human sciences are not the weak link in the realm of knowledge but an ever growing area of knowledge that tirelessly tries to accomodate human behaviour.
its really hard to take sides cos in economics for example the law of demand states that "At lower prices consumers demand more and at higher prices consumers demand less"... this is true in reality so thats a good law but the part of the law that finishes "all things remaining constant" just makes it slightly questionable because many assumptions are made and unlike natural sciences where a fact is a fact,in economics certain things must be assumed to predict something that consumers and producers are suposed to rely on.how sure are we that they will always work. experimentation in the natural sciences is also more reliable but some of these laws in human sciences are also true to some extent however i think the human sciences have more limitation than the natural sciences
ReplyDeleteI diagree with the view that the natural sciences are a poor relation to the natural sciences simply because they struggle to apply the scientific method. The scientific method is certainly useful for finding out a lot of things, but it is ridiculous to expect it to be equally effective in the human sciences. Human being are far to complex to have their behaviour explained by using the scientific method.
ReplyDeleteTake economics. A man will take a job that pays $300,000 a year in a work area where the average salary is $200,000 a year, ahead of a job that pays $400,000 in a place where the average salary is $500,000 a year. Why? Because it doesn't just matter to him to be richer, he must be richer than his immediate neighbours! Harldy logical stuff!
I Do however share the witer's frustration: in an ideal world, the human sciences could produce reliable theories that would make life a whole lot more simple.
I however would not want this ideal life, there is a certain beauty in the unpredictablity of human behaviour, whose [beauty] maintainance I believe is essential.
Yes, the human sciences fail to produce reliable theories, or laws –AGREED! But I stand with Ohene when he says they shouldn’t be classified as the weaker links in our acquisition of knowledge. Here’s how I see it… Natural sciences answer the basic questions of our reality such as what, where, who, when, how? The data they explore is more or less, exact and more often than not, quantitative. The human sciences rather take on the more complicated task of answering the question of why? Now this question allows so much subjectivity that, human science” theories” have to employ trends of logic reasoning like deduction, induction and inferences. That’s why they always have clauses attached such as “pareto optimality”, “ceteris paribus”, etc. like my friends above stated. However, to tell you the truth, I see no point in trying to create a theory when there are so many other factors that can come in to play, including the ones that we have not identified yet…because then what? Anyway, I guess these theories help to give the human sciences a framework but I honestly think the human sciences may have been so much more fascinating if there were no such theories to master! But we cannot classify them weaker – After all, they spur most of the most controversial debates in today’s world…Life would have been so much boring if everything was based on strict scientific methodology, because there wouldn't have been so much intiguing debate about whys of human beings!
ReplyDeleteThanks to the contributors so far – very interesting comments indeed.
ReplyDeleteDidi – do you think that economics should confine itself to descriptions of empirical reality? Which do we value more – accuracy of description or the logical coherence of an overarching explanation? Is the tension between the two any more annoying than, say, the difference between the physical world in which we live and the “frictionless surfaces” and “ideal gases” of the physicists?
Ohene – it is interesting that you mention all those theories of migration. Does this point to the significant difference between the natural and human sciences alluded to by Kojo – namely that humans as objects of study are just so much more complex than the subject matter of physics and chemistry? Is this true?
Clemi – you cite the law of demand. I am wondering if we can hold us this law in the light of the criteria for scientific laws mentioned during the sessions on the natural sciences. In other words, how far can it be mathematized, reduced to a simple relationship of variables, be found to apply universally, etc.? Can we appraise this law as a candidate?
Tori – you have hit on a fascinating point in your post. Is there a fundamental difference between a “how” and a “why” explanation, and does this difference lie at the heart of the natural/human divide? What do you think?
I am also intrigued by what Tori and Kojo have written about the “beauty of unpredictability” and the attraction of controversy – this seems to hint at a role for elegance and aesthetics in the search for knowledge. Do we look for beauty in the construction or limitations of our knowledge? Remember Dirac…
What do others have to say about all this…?
It is true that humans are much more complex than matter, energy or anything natural science studies. This is largely due to the fact that humans possess intelligence and emotion. These properties are not possessed by anything studied by the natural sciences. An electron cannot decide to switch orbitals because it is bored or it wants to discover what lies beyond. A ray of light cannot change course because it wants to avoid a wall ahead. Basically, human motives are based on emotion or intelligent decisions but matters of study of natural sciences are affected by controllable and predictable stimuli. Also, like the way math is confined to what math can define and axioms, humans are confined to what they can handle and prove and thus are hindered by their own axioms.
ReplyDeleteI think its pretty obvious that no one will be willing to classify the human sciences as a lesser relation to the natural sciences after all we are all human are we not? Conceding to this would be admitting that the natural sciences, intangible hypothesis and laws, are far more superior than us the humans who created them.
ReplyDeleteHuman beings are complex matters, they are not phenomenons to repeated over and over again. Yes some of actions may be repeated from time to time but essentially no two people are alike therefore it would ridiculous to apply theories and laws to them. Term science is derived from one that means "knowledge through observation". Therefore economics, sociology, history etc. Should be classified as sciences as to whether or not they should feel pressure to live up to the name 'science'. I think not.
lookig at the question itself i would like one person to answer this question "do they struggle to apply the scientific method?
ReplyDeleteLinda Ndlela
I agree to this because in my opinion, for example in economics, too many assumptions are made which could be challenged by the natural scientists like the assumption of rationality, because in actual fact not every body has the same line of thought and therefore one may be seen to be irrational by the other depending on how the person thinks. I think this brings about the failure because it would be difficult to justify the assumptions made, using economics as an example.
ReplyDeleteI havent followed the whole thread, but i think what Teye Mensah says has an amount of truth to it. Trying to make the humanities like science, will most definitely make them poorer representations of natural sciences...I had wanted to comment a long time ago but seeing the words "human sciences" really put me off.
ReplyDeleteI think that for as long as we refer to the humanities as "sciences", they will remain "the poor relations of natural science."
Honestly,i do not understand why they have to conform to scientific methods. Is there anything wrong with being incapable of prediction? Because i believe that yes, humans are unpredictable. Why does education try to make humanities "bend" and "twist" to become like sciences?
Yesterday's humanities day triggered these questions...I think humanities that try to become apply the scientific method will always fail at a point, like economics...in terms of the credit crunch.
In all, as much as i believe that th human sciences (ouch) are poorer representations as compared to the natural sciences, i also, strongly think that they do not need to be pressured to apply the scientific method.
I havent followed the whole thread, but i think what Teye Mensah says has an amount of truth to it. Trying to make the humanities like science, will most definitely make them poorer representations of natural sciences...I had wanted to comment a long time ago but seeing the words "human sciences" really put me off.
ReplyDeleteI think that for as long as we refer to the humanities as "sciences", they will remain "the poor relations of natural science."
Honestly,i do not understand why they have to conform to scientific methods. Is there anything wrong with being incapable of prediction? Because i believe that yes, humans are unpredictable. Why does education try to make humanities "bend" and "twist" to become like sciences?
Yesterday's humanities day triggered these questions...I think humanities that try to become apply the scientific method will always fail at a point, like economics...in terms of the credit crunch.
In all, as much as i believe that th human sciences (ouch) are poorer representations as compared to the natural sciences, i also, strongly think that they do not need to be pressured to apply the scientific method.
I agree quite a lot with Deborah. I mean, even though the scientific method/approach works and has worked wonders for the human race, it doesn't HAVE to be dominant everywhere. Furthermore, I do not completely agree that the theories produced by the human sciences are unreliable. They help us to some extent, but then we must always have in mind that humans are unpredictable (which Deborah touched on) and that there are exceptions. THAT is what establishes the difference between the two (i.e. the human sciences and the natural sciences). You cannot compare humans and the natural world. They're just two very different things.
ReplyDeleteThus, I also agree with Deborah that branding the humanities as sciences will quite inevitably make them the poor relations of the natural sciences.
Just to add, I am actually one of the people caught between the humanities and the natural sciences (I love both areas of knowledge) and so I do not necessarily "side" with any of them.
I bear similar sentiments with previous comments. Due to the complex and fickle nature of human behaviour, it would always be rather difficult and tedious, to use the scientific method and obtain credible theories. In retrospect, the human sciences should be oblivious of the need to incorporate the scientific method in most situations. Instead, they should be appreciated for the depth of knowledge they provide for humanity-oriented walks of life. I feel as though it would do the human sciences injustice, for them to be comparatively seen as "poor relations to the natural sciences", even though there is some element of truth in that statement.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I most definitely agree with everything that my colleagues have already mentioned. We cannot in any sense compare the human sciences to the natural sciences. It is simply impossible because of the simple fact that, the scientific method is just inappropriate for work in the human sciences. The human sciences fail to apply the scientific method not only because we can’t easily “experiment” on human beings as some ethical issues will be raised. Apart from the fact that human beings can’t be experimented on, we can’t simply draw conclusions and come up with theories and laws by just observing them. Now, we begin to see the limitations of sense perception and the other ways on knowing when we deal with human beings. We are unpredictable and as such cannot be put under controlled measures since the slightest attempt to do so will drastically fail. This is because ethical issues will be raised and also because of the variety of the reactions of human beings. We don’t all react to certain things in the same way. A typical example of this will be the consumption of a Veblen good and the consumption of a Giffen good. The fact is that all the other factors which affect human being are not known. They are simply just too many to be known. Thus, the “theories” and “laws” gained will be rendered unreliable since we make too many “assumptions” and predictions” when it comes to the human sciences.
ReplyDeleteMany more interesting responses. Just a few comments here.
ReplyDeleteMy original post about the human sciences was of course deliberately provocative in order to get some reactions. But the sentiment behind the "quotation" is quite widespread - witness the reference during the Humanities Day presentation to the human sciences as the "illegitimate child".
Many of you have expressed solidarity with the claim that the human sciences (as sciences) are somehow inferior to the human sciences, but I could argue that more credit should be given to the achievements of these subjects. Economics has flourished as a rigorous discipline partially through sustained efforts to mathematize its content and universalize its applicability (both characteristics shared with much of the spectrum of natural science). We should take full cognizance of this before we take aim at the economists in the context of the credit crunch or similar. There is little doubt that science has been just about the most successful avenue for the generation of reliable knowledge (does anyone wish to dispute this claim?), and it is thus hardly surprising that scholars interested in the study of human beings should wish to emulate it as far as possible.
Let me be provocative again - this time on the other side of the argument. If the human sciences are really so flawed and limited in the worthwhile knowedge they offer, why have 68 out of 85 of you chosen to learn IB Economics?
Sorry - of course I meant:
ReplyDeleteMany of you have expressed solidarity with the claim that the human sciences (as sciences) are somehow inferior to the NATURAL sciences, but I could argue that more credit should be given to the achievements of these subjects.
Well, certainly Mr. Kitching. I definitely agree with the fact that the application of the scientific method in the human sciences does not render them completely useless or ineffective. Neither does it mean that the search for knowledge in such areas of study are futile and in effect not worthwhile. I just think that it has perhaps restricted them and left many loop holes in their conclusions and findings. I also feel that because of the kind of value placed on the scientific method by researchers, they feel pressured into using it instead of exploring different avenues and methods of research.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I chose economics in IB because I needed a humanity, I had done it in IG, and was familiar with it.I also knew that it was needed for some job prospects I was interested in at the time. But at the humanities day celebration, I was given a whole new outlook on the role of subjects such as Economics in our world. I realize that it was not merely an attempt to simplify economic systems or generalize put human behavior in a box. I realized that it was a move to understand our behavior, to understand and i quote " who we are as a race".
Definitely, the work of the economist is commendable and in fact has contributed a lot to sustainability on the planet (remembering the long list of the good works and achievements of economics Mama gave on Humanities Day). And like KoJo and Tori said life would be boring without subjects like these.
However, I have a question:
" Do we NEED the theories of economics?"
Because I remember Mama saying that economics existed long before modern man. But then it wasn't called economics then, it was just common sense like it is now. It is common sense to choose a need over a want or make a more convenient choice. It doesn't take a class on opportunity cost and scarcity to know that you should invest your last penny in something more important. (that's even subjective). This brings me to another question:
" Do we gain any new knowledge from the human sciences and do they produce polished, restructured and more refined known knowns to us?"
I disagree with the fact that the Human sciences are a poor relations of the natural sciences because the natural sciences have the opportunity of studying the behaviour of the natural environment which hardly change unlike the human sciences which are stuck with coming out with the best possible explanation of human behaviour which vary from human to human. However, human scientists unlike the natural scientists base most of the theories on observing a sample and assumptions without experimenting. This doesn’t make these theories any weaker. To answer Dionne’s question about the importance of economic theories, I will say that they are necessary because it presents us with a similar situation as to what it actually is rather than studying it wt serves as a without all its assumptions. Also, the human sciences are is a mixture of both new and refined knowledge. For instance in Geography we know that people migrate but as time moves on more reasons for migration come out.
ReplyDeleteMr Kitching:
ReplyDeleteOn the notion that economics has done a great deal for human-kind, i agree. It has solved problems..but i still stand by the idea that looking at it from a scientific point of view will most definitely render it weaker... Economics is doing the great thing by quantifying itself, but the reason why it will be flawed is that it wants to ignore human emotions and sentiments such as greed and corruption..which could cause it's theories not to work..is there a theory in physics which can be affected by corruption?..
About the subject choices...when i chose my IB subjects and chose economics (maybe it was because i had never done it) but I chose it because I was merely interested in that humanity that had theories...I didnt view it as a science that studied human nature. It was never a matter of it being a science...it was never a matter of it being "a weaker science" because it was never viewed from that angle... so they are flawed if they try to be sciences..i still stand by that view. However, i understand that economics has done well by getting all these theories etc ..it had QUANTIFIED itself, and this doesnt mean that it has improved itself.
I believe Natural Sciences are a good means of aqcuiring knowledge but i also think that they are too limited. Unlike the sciences one cannot prove whether a theory is true or not. Looking at history one can agree that by studying the actions of one of the most famouse dictactors the world has known, we can come out with the knowledge of what happens when a nation seeks for revenge because it has not been treated with justice. We see what happens when a great nation decides to isolates itself from the world just like the USA and all those things are they not ways of gaining knowledge about a certain event and its after effects so that we do not repeat the same mistakes over and over again?
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that the methodology undertaken in the human sciences does not make it inferior, or for that matter, a weaker link in comparison to the natural sciences. Its limitations and many assumptions boil down to one very entity – the perplexity of the human mind. Its irritability and shear dynamism is indeed what makes methodology in the human sciences more demanding than the other and for that reason, almost not applicable to an extent under scientific methodology. Now before you conclude that this makes the human sciences ineffective, think about how much progress the human race has made with the numerous findings and assumptions; these have satisfied human curiosity in so many areas and has to an extent, with the collaboration of technology, helped man to understand each other better and to be able to predict to a point the actions of humans (human instincts) as a result of various circumstances.
ReplyDeleteYes in the natural sciences laws, theories and whatnot have to be a 100% assured of validity to be universally accepted and merged into the world of science. HOWEVER in the natural sciences, of course due to human complexity and dynamism, experts will never expect that much. But it's good to know that even with 70% validity in a theory or observation of human science; it's actually a sensational feat!!!!
To compare percentage accuracies without looking at the root of the human sciences would rather be a shame because if one is to reflect on the ground-breaking discoveries of people: the father of economics Adam Smith (who makes us understand and know what to expect from the general public when an economic decision is made), archaeologists (who answer many questions on the timeline of human existence and human origin) , anthropologists (who answer questions on culture and language) etc., we would realize that these are not AT ALL inferior and ineffective but have enhanced our very understanding and have answered many angles of human behaviour; and eventually has undeniably began to clear the fog on the ENIGMATIC HUMAN MIND!!!
Melissa, looking at it from your point of view, it can be said that yes, the human sciences are phenomenal. But, as you said "...in the natural sciences laws, theories and whatnot have to be a 100% assured of validity to be universally accepted and merged into the world of science. HOWEVER in the natural(you meant human, I think) sciences, of course due to human complexity and dynamism, experts will never expect that much.
ReplyDeleteYou went on to say that Natural sciences reap 100% accuracy, while human sciences reap about 70%. Clearly, this indicates that human sciences are weaker in terms of accuracy. Now let me ask, isn't accuracy what science hopes to achieve? Doesn't science want to find the EXACT answers, the specific reasons why something happens? Now in that sense, I do believe that the human sciences, if looked at from that angle ARE inferior.
I understand all the examples you have given about Adan Smith, archaeologists and anthropolists BUT in each case, whatever these people come up with are NEVER as accurate as what comes up in science. In the case of AdaM Smith, he generalises about the reactions of people..it may not be trues in all cases. With the archaeologists, in as much as they may answer teh questions on human existence and origin, they can only deduce and prove to an extent. They will never know what EXACTLY happened. The same goes for anthropologists..
I am just saying that once human sciences are measured by sciences, they may never be accurate as the natural sciences are. In Biology, you cut up a human being, see what his stomach looks like, see his lungs...in archaelogy, you go to sites, find old items of the ancient people and draw a picture of how they lived. It is beautiful. It can be accurate but they were never there.
The human sciences should not be looked at from the angle of the natural sciences. Considering the human mind however, I must say that they have done extremely well and to an extent can even match up to sciences in certain cases. However, looking at them through their own lenses, without linking them to science, I believe will show us how far they have come, even more strongly.
I do two human sciences, economics and geography and so i strongly disagree that the human sciences fail to produce reliable laws and theories. this is because human sciences produce theories and laws which can easily be proved or disapproved such as the common law of demand. if for example the price of plantain chips in the tuck shop was increased to 5cedis without a doubt more than 3/4 of the school population will purchase plantain chips. this can easily be proved by the scientific method- experimentation. in the natural sciences we have what is called uncertainties which must be accounted for in every experiment made. in human sciences it is the same as my colleague has said "ceteris paribus" -all things equal. and so neither science is a 100% accurate! i agree with melissa although human sciences do not have a strong base as the natural science it is not inferior because without these simple laws and theories simple economical decisions cannot be made.
ReplyDeleteOne must also take into consideration that human sciences deal with humans who are unpredictable and so assumptions HAVE to be made. On the other hand natural sciences it is like what you see is what you get so i wonder is it that natural sciences are simpler than human sciences?
First of all I strongly believe that is part of our human nature to strive for control and order. If not we wouldn’t have laws and theories governing our own behaviour as humans as the human sciences try to do. I used try to do because the laws and theories made up do not apply to all humans. There are always exceptions, in fact a lot of exceptions and that is why sciences like Economics use statements like ceteris paribus. There a law in Economics that states that at a higher price demand for goods and services will decrease, ceteris paribus. Economists seeing that this is not always true came up with Veblen goods which are goods whose demand increases even as price increases due to reasons like social status and habit formation. I would not say that they are contradicting themselves but rather, they are trying to cover the loop holes with even more laws and it goes on and on. Humans are unique and that is the mistake that the human scientist make. Humans are also unpredictable as most people have already said but I am not very sure about the beauty in this. Wouldn’t you want to at least have an idea as to how someone is going to behave when you are stranded on an island with limited food? From various psychological studies we learn that humans will always fend for themselves alone when there is a crisis so we expect that someone is going to wake up in the middle of the night and eat the last slice of cake when you are all asleep? One thing I like about the human sciences is that they minimise the surprises that occur within humans.
ReplyDeletePoor is not the right word to compare the human sciences to the natural sciences. Even the natural sciences are not so perfect because of the idea of falsification.
I totally agree with everyone when they say that the human sciences are the poor relations of the natural sciences because they 'struggle' to apply the scientific method and also fail to produce reliable theories and laws.
ReplyDeleteI think the lots of assumptions in the human sciences arise due to the fact the scientific method doesn't work as effectively as it does in the Natural sciences but we cannot just stand up and say that they are the weak ones!! What if they, the human sciences, had a method of their own?, would you expect it to work perfectly with the Natural sciences?? Lets just be realistic!!
The human sciences are struggling to apply the scientific method because it is not their own. The same way I cannot for example try to be Lloyd. As much as i can try, I'll never be him although I could have a few personality traits that he posses.
The Human sciences should just find a base of their own and stop relying on others maybe that way they will be able to fight for themselves and increase their level of reliability and credibility. Who knows, maybe the Human sciences are still 'evolving' and who knows what lies ahead for them? lets just wait and see that is, if you will be around long enough to see...
Human sciences study human behavior, how is it possible for humans to be generalised and have theories about them that can explain every situation that happens in their lives? First of all, human sciences do not need to nstruggle to apply scientific method on their theories because it is not theirs. Human sciences deal with humans and in ny case, though they might struggle to come up with reliable theories or laws, it is still possible for humanitarians, economists and geolosits to study , tell future and predict what will happen if something happened.Human Sciences might be considered to be of poor use in the areas of knowledge but how sure and accurate is that. By studying the economy aren't the economists giving out knowledge?
ReplyDeletewhy should we judge this according to the methods used/. i strongly believe that the human sciences fail to or struggle to apply the scientific methods because they do not need to use the SCIENTIFIC METHODS in the first place. i also agree with Ohene that the scientific methods are not that reliable because they are usually changed as time goes on. I do a lot of human sciences and i believe that the human sciences are unique in their way and so people should start appreciating it like that.
ReplyDeleteLinda
I stand on the of the human sciences being poor relations of the natural sciences which struggle to apply the scientific method, and fail to produce reliable theories or laws.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, one thing that quickly came to mind as soon as I read this, was the fact that in human sciences, such as the economics, there is a great deal of assumption which when excluded in real will make the entire theories false. A good example is the Ceteris Paribus (all things being equal) and law of demand and supply. With the law of demand, it states that "all things being equal, the lower the price of a commodity, the higher the quantity demanded and the higher the price, the low the quantity demanded." This law applies only if all things remained constant or being equal! which is never the case in real life.
Another concept I would like to mention in Economics is "EFFICIENCY", which always in conflict with sustainable development. I remember last month having an Econs class with my teacher who gave me the definition of Efficiency as allocating all the resources towards the production goods if efficiency is to happen. I was very surprised and quickly asked if this concept took sustainable development (use of resources in such a ways that we compromise with the future generation to meet theirs), and to my surprise she told me that it doesn't actually take sustainable development into consideration! This fact proves of much conflicts there can actually be between concepts in Economics! and this makes the theories and laws extremely unreliable.