• What kinds of knowledge are usually included in the category of human science? How do we decide
whether a particular area of study is a human science? What are the similarities and differences between the subject matter and methodologies of the various human sciences? • To what extent does the human subject matter of this area of knowledge affect a scientific approach? Is it reasonable to think that human behaviour can be studied scientifically? • Are the human sciences, as a whole, fundamentally different from the natural sciences? Or are there sometimes surprising similarities between the two areas in, for example, the ways they use models and theories, their methods for collecting data, the nature of facts, the role of observation and experimentation, the impact of the observer on the observed phenomena, quantification, falsifiability, precise prediction, identification of constants, and the degree of complexity of the phenomena studied? • How might the language used in polls, questionnaires and other information-gathering devices of this sort influence the conclusions reached? If there is an influence, does it, or a similar one, occur in natural science research? Does the extent of the influence relate to the degree of certainty attributed to the natural sciences and the human sciences respectively, or to the social status or value associated with each? • How does the use of numbers, statistics, graphs and other quantitative instruments affect the way knowledge claims in the human sciences are valued? • Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour independently of what people claim are their intentions? Are there insights into behaviour that can only be afforded by finding these out?
8 Comments
Gabriella Freeman
5/20/2013 04:13:32 am
To what extent does the human subject matter of this area of knowledge affect a scientific approach? Is it reasonable to think that human behaviour can be studied scientifically?
Reply
Mr. S
6/12/2013 11:17:14 pm
Excellent points. But what about the things that we share - situations where we all react in similar ways? Individuals are difficult to predict, but large groups of individuals are not.
Reply
Mari Teixeira
5/28/2013 11:35:25 pm
Quantitative instruments affect the way that the human sciences are valued because with these types of instruments we are able to have an idea of what the information means. With quantitative data rather than qualitative data we are able to understand the dimension of what is being said rather than having a superficial notion such as “a lot”, “very” or “many”. The sciences use numbers as a result providing people with a more realistic and tangible information that makes the information more reliable and more believable. People tend to believe more in information that is real and that can give a definite answer that cannot be dependent on opinion of perspective. In a well preformed experiment with quantitative instruments the information specific and cannot be contested. In experiments like such that is logic behind it and people have very little tendency to doubt it. For this reason, the knowledge claims made by the human sciences are very valued since most people are able to understand and accept the information being presented. When shown in quantitative instruments the data is very specific and clear, therefore, more valued and believed by people.
Reply
Mr S
6/12/2013 11:19:10 pm
This type of explanation would benefit from giving examples of what kind of quantitative instruments you are referring to. Also, differentiate between quantitative and qualitative instruments.
Reply
Sarah Godoy
6/16/2013 06:42:21 am
Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour independently of what people claim are their intentions? Are there insights into behaviour that can only be afforded by finding these out?
Reply
Anna Pearson
6/18/2013 02:54:39 pm
Human sciences are fundamentally different from natural sciences. Human sciences study more of trends than verifying fact. In human sciences, social, cultural and behavioral trends are “measured” or observed while in natural sciences, measureable things such as size, volume and data are recorded. Some behavioral and social concepts can’t be measured due to the subjectivity of the topic or the basis of the area of study in the brain. Because of the fact that scientists can’t get into the brain, many areas are very hard to study and find exact answers. The observer is more influenced by bias in human sciences due to a position based on religion or race. However, in natural sciences, scientists are more likely to be less biased or deal with such psychological topics such as behavior originating from the brain. In addition, the term “fact” has a much higher prevalence in natural sciences where topics can seem to be proven to be factual. Human sciences do not have the terms to justify fact and the nature of fact in human sciences differs and is much more versatile. On the other hand, human and natural sciences both have many things in common such as the process of collecting and analyzing data. Both areas may study different things, but the methods used to collect data are not doubt very similar.
Reply
Anna Pearson
6/18/2013 02:55:11 pm
My Question:
Reply
Athavan Balendran
6/18/2013 04:02:54 pm
Are the human sciences, as a whole, fundamentally different from the natural sciences? Or are there sometimes surprising similarities between the two areas in, for example, the ways they use models and theories, their methods for collecting data, the nature of facts, the role of observation and experimentation, the impact of the observer on the observed phenomena, quantification, falsifiability, precise prediction, identification of constants, and the degree of complexity of the phenomena studied?
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWelcome to ToK. Archives
May 2013
Categories |