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

Theories in both natural and human sciences have been very controversial throughout history such as evolution. Although some stand as correct and some have been proven wrong, most of them tend to have enough evidence to be considered correct. Most of these theories have endured a process for them to be rectified and considered as correct. The process depends on long observations, large amount of empirical prove and the interpretation of this prove. The difference in which these two areas of knowledge reach a specific conclusion is what makes them have a difference in their capability to convince people. We should analyse which and how certain factors convince us that these theories are true. I will look and compare various theories in order to fully understand the cause of their convincing extent.

Let me start by defining a couple of terms used in the question that will facilitate the understanding of the question. The word theory can only be defined as an idea that is descriptive, has a logic explanation and might be foretold easily. It starts with a hypothesis, which is then tested and supported by a series of experiments or proof. The most important thing in theories is that they are capable of being proven wrong, so there will always be an opposition to the theory; they are never “completely true”. Convincing is another term that needs definition. In this case, a convincing theory is the one that has more arguments to support its validity than arguments that oppose.

As stated before in the definition, theories are never completely true. So we ask ourselves, why do we consider some theories as completely accurate? One possible reason for this is the scientific method in which these theories are tested, this methods are co...

... middle of paper ...

...understand both its positive and negative aspects. This is the way in which we understand what is it of both natural and human science theories that might make them convincing to certain people and why is it that some are considered as facts even if they are only bare theories.

Bibliography.

Books:

• Bick, Mimi + Dombrowski, Eileen + Rotenberg, Lena; IB diploma programme Theory Of Knowledge Course Companion; Oxford; Oxford, England; 2007.

• Kid, Allan + Wilson, Pauline, Sociology GCSE for AQA; Collins; London, England; 2010.

Internet:

• Boomer, Ian; Isotopes: theory, principles and practicalities; http://palstrat.uni-graz.at/methods%20in%20ostracodology/BoomerIsotopes(170908).pdf

• Briney, Amanda; Central Place Theory: an overview of Christaller’s central place theory; http://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/centralplace.html