“What are the main difficulties human scientists confront when trying to provide explanations of human behaviour? What methods have been invented to circumvent these difficulties and to minimize their influence on the results that are obtained?”
Although many people in the field of human sciences try to get their disciplines to be recognized as pure sciences, there are many differences that distinguish the natural sciences from the human sciences. There is a certain kudos that comes with the natural sciences that people in the human sciences crave, but human sciences can never be like the natural sciences.
This is what causes there to be difficulties with human scientists trying to explain their science. They lack the definite, and factual ground on which the natural sciences are based. When a natural scientist hypothesises that when he heats some water to 100 degrees, it will boil. And then after an experiment, it is shown that it does, one can not argue that perhaps on another day the water wouldn’t feel like boiling at 100 degrees, or that perhaps it was only boiling at that temperature because there were people watching. Water boiling at 100 degrees is a scientific fact. It will occur every time the experiment is carried out. However, in the field of human sciences, these facts do not exist, and this makes it very difficult for a human scientist to prove any of his theories, or speculate on situations with any authority. The reason for this is that the study of human sciences involves, obviously, human behaviour. Human behaviour does not follow the same patterns that are observed with particles of matter, or certain metals, it is almost totally unpredictable.
However, the human sciences do use similar methods of attaining knowledge to the natural sciences. The methods by which the human scientist attains knowledge has the same basic principles to that of the natural scientist. They have hypotheses which they test through observing, and analysing their observations. However, in the natural sciences, the observer is quite distinct from the experiment, as an astronomist is distinct from the planets and stars that he is observing. Whereas, in the human sciences, a human is the observer, and humans are the experiment. This complicates things. In every science there are theories. In the natural sciences these theories can be proved true or false, and therefore it can be determined whether these theories have an effect the result of the experiment.
This essay examines the advantages and disadvantages of using a method primarily for gathering research on human subjects that can be examined for later use. It will give a basic outline of the methods of investigation, their uses and their suitability. I will also look at the scientific method as a whole and examine the criticisms of this method using the writings of Hume and Popper.
Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers-for example by introducing some ad hoc auxiliary assumption, or re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. However, such a method either destroys or lowers its scientific status.” These criteria make it hard for pseudosciences such as astrology or dowsing to be considered science. There has also been large increases in the accuracy and use of technology is ensuring that there is more empirical evidence and proof that theories are being based on. Some may argue against the corrected ratio of falsified to accepted theories, but unless every theory in the history of science was to be measured that argument would be futile, and the above point would still
Science is the knowledge gained by a systematic study, knowledge which then becomes facts or principles. In the systematic study; the first step is observation, the second step hypothesis, the third step experimentation to test the hypothesis, and lastly the conclusion whether or not the hypothesis holds true. These steps have been ingrained into every student of science, as the basic pathway to scientific discovery. This pathway holds not decision as to good or evil intention of the experiment. Though, there are always repercussions of scientific experiments. They range from the most simplistic realizations of the difference between acid and water to the principle that Earth is not the center of the Universe. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein depicts this very difference in the story of Victor Frankenstein. A scientist who through performing his experiments creates a monster which wreaks havoc upon humanity. Frankenstein concentrating wholly upon discovery ignores the consequences of his actions.
The development of psychology like all other sciences started with great minds debating unknown topics and searching for unknown answers. Early philosophers and psychologists such as Sir Francis Bacon and Charles Darwin took a scientific approach to psychology by introducing the ideas of measurement and biology into the way an indi...
After considering all the described points in this paper, it can be rightly said that there is a considerable difference between science and other types of knowledge.
The aim of this essay is to analyse four theoretical approaches to psychology, including psychodynamic, humanistic, cognitive and behavioural. Analysing each approach in detail and identifying key features the approach uses to explain human behaviour. This essay will also analyse how successful each approach is in it methods, evidence gathering techniques and analyse how it can be applied to giving reasons for particular human behaviours. As well as analysing each approaches failings in it theories, methods and evidence gathering techniques.
Anything that can be studied is absolutely considered a science. When people think of science and the scientific method they most often think of chemicals. Human experiment’s can also be conducted and considered scientific. The scientific method can be used to study people. Simply start by asking a question, doing background research, and then constructing a hypothesis. When studying people or their culture you can absolutely start with these simple steps, therefore using science to study these people. After determining your hypothesis, you can test it with an experiment, record your results and form a conclusion. “Science is the best system yet devised for reducing subjective bias, error, untruths, lies, and frauds.” (Harris, 1994, Pg. 6) Harris states that using science is they best way to prevent errors or miscalculations. We use science everyday; to assess every situation, and every problem that we have, even when we don’t think we a...
How do we explain, predict and control human behavior? This question remains a central underlying theme within psychology as a whole. Few specific branches of psychology have attempted to integrate multiple perspectives within their fields of research. Evolutionary psychology appears to be unique in this endeavor, and as the following researchers point out, “Evolutionary psychology is the long-forestalled scientific attempt to assemble out of the disjointed, fragmentary, and mutually contradictory human disciplines a single, logically integrated research framework for the psychological, social, and behavioural sciences—a framework that not only incorporates the evolutionary sciences on a full and equal basis, but that systematically works out all of the revisions in existing belief and research practice that such a synthesis requires” (Tooby & Cosmides, 2005)
Up until the sixteenth century, people believed that God could explain all actions. In general, science did not really exist. People simply looked to the Bible for reassurance about then unexplainable phenomenon. With the development of a scientific method and the industrial revolution, people began to recognize reason in their world through science. In the present day, the general public in their quest to discover all of natures secrets depends on science and its reason. Rogets Dictionary declares that science includes the observation, identification, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Science tries to describe nature through all of these methods. It seems that every day a new study is published about the relationship between nature and humans. Scientists have explained and improved many aspects of human health and the human body, especially in the twentieth century. In 1936, Dr. Alexis Carrel developed the artificial heart. In 1937, insulin began to be used to control diabetes. In 1943, penicillin was discovered. In 1954, Jonas Salk inoculated children with the polio vaccination. In 1970, scientist at the University of Wisconsin completed the first complete synthesis of a gene. In 1978 the first "test-tube baby" was born in England and finally, in 1980, the Wor...
As for the human sciences, theories cannot always be tested. Sometimes logic and inferences must be used in order to come to a conclusion. Reason and emotion play a significant role in how persuasive a theo...
Because a lot of the information gathered in this area of knowledge is obtained by observing human behavior, there are many limitations to this field of study. Beginning in the observation stage, there are three main limitations. While we may be able to observe human behavior, we have no way of knowing exactly what is going through a person’s head at the time of experiment, which rules out some forms of study. However, if the experiment allows a subject to speak about what they are thinking about it still leaves room for a subject to lie if they so choose. Which leads into the next limitation, humans tend to be effected by the observer effect; when subjects are observed they tend to act differently than when acting normally which can affect the study. Another limitation in observation is that the questionnaires given to subjects can be misleading or biased to one side. Because humans have an intense need to seem normal, known as the social phenomena, subjects may tend to lean towards the side that seems most positive, or the side that most other people would
Scientific knowledge is not opposed to social science or to common sense knowledge, but is interrelated. Science began as a new method to rationalize and prove knowledge - much of it common - sense knowledge. With an apparent objectivity. However, scientists are members of a society, and the society in which they live shapes and constrains the scientific knowledge they produce. Science is not separate form society, but a part of it.
Psychologists are primarily engaged in the task of explaining behaviour, rather than merely cataloguing it. The difference between theory and description – “why” versus “what” – echoes the difference between science and common sense. Common sense certainly helps describe what takes place in behaviour, but doesn’t compel us to understand why it takes place. The develo... ... middle of paper ... ...
The major difference between History and Human science is way in which the scientist uses tools while the historian uses facts and figures. Feyerabend explains that an allegory presented by the human scientist depends on egotism, ideals, and the perspective of other shape of knowledge, and are not enveloped by method, evidence, reason or argument (Anderson 259). There is a big debate to whether social science is actually a science. J.S.Mill believes that while we can justify and discover unpretentious regularities in the physical world, we can also explore the connections between actions thoughts through Mill’s Method on causation (Salmon). This allows us to interpret the change in human behavior over a period of time. Human science can become exact to physical science as human behavior can cause unknowable circumstances (Salmon).
To consider a theory as truthful, it must be convincing which means the theory must stand the challenges that may occur such as persuading people for it being true, without any questioning about its value. Every individual will be convinced in a different type of way on different levels. For example, when one considers the large influence of media on our society today, some may think the news is as accurate as possible, and think every thing that is said must definitely be true. Only very basic descriptions and explanations may be required to convince someone that something is true or not. For others, detailed explanations with supporting facts may have to be provided, for them to believe what they hear, even if the theory is completely accurate. Another factor that is relevant is whether the individual is influenced by their subconscious tend or their intuition, this means whether they want to believe in the theory or not. Emotional bases and using reasoning are another two factors that may influence our beliefs. When looking at natural science, emotion does not play a large role, but rather reasoning because natural science is based on facts rather than individual interpretatio...