Convincing of Theories of Human Sciences and Natural Sciences - Essay Example

18 April Convincingness of theories of human sciences and natural sciences Human sciences and natural sciences are two fields of sciences, which have readily expanded in knowledge over the past few centuries. Knowledge expands with theories. People make guesses, in scientific terms “hypotheses”, which are tested for their validity. Different theories of human sciences and natural sciences keep surfacing from time to time, some of which are refuted while others are accepted. Irrespective of whether a theory is accepted or rejected, it cannot be said that it has been verified as true or false, which is the reason why it is termed as a theory. There are a number of theories in human sciences and natural sciences that have gained the consensus of a vast majority of critics, and thus have been found convincing. A lot of technological advancements that have been made in the past few centuries are based on the very theories of natural sciences. Likewise, theories in human sciences have led to the development of models of psychological therapy. Most of the factors that make theories in human sciences convincing differ from the factors which make the theories in natural sciences convincing, and yet there are certain factors that play a role in making the theories in both the fields convincing. This paper discusses the factors responsible for the convincingness of human sciences and natural sciences. Human sciences, as the name indicates, are the sciences about humans. These include the study of sociology, psychology and behavior of humans. There is no objective way to test the theories of human sciences. There is a lot of subjectivity in the arguments made with the theories of human sciences, which can fundamentally be attributed to the diversity of human nature. There is probably, nothing as diverse in this universe, as human nature. While the theories of natural sciences can generally be easily tested for their reliability using the scientific methods, it is not quite as easy to conduct such tests on humans. There is a whole range of factors that play a role in it. The first and the foremost factor that keeps such tests to be performed is the fact that the subjects upon which the test is to be conducted are humans. Humans are living beings in which capacity, they have certain rights which may never be violated. This increases the difficulty for the researchers to approach the subjects of research and gain their consent for participation. The second factor which plays a role in making the testing insufficient to test a theory is the restraint of imitation. In order to compare the results derive from the study of one human being with that of another, a researcher needs to identify control variables and make the necessary arrangements to make the conditions in the second case just like they were during the study of the first human. No matter how hard a researcher tries, there are certain factors which are beyond the control of the researcher which influence the results. They include the difference of the states of mind of the research participants between the first and the second case. Owing to the exposure of research in the field of human sciences to various challenges and uncontrollable factors, a secondary tool utilized in the evaluation of theories is human intuition. Researchers tend to investigate the theories of knowledge in several ways. “My purpose [is] to enquire into the origin, certainty, and extent of human knowledge; together, with the grounds and degrees of belief, opinion, and assent” (Locke cited in Hewett). People tend to believe the theories they can relate to in context of their past experiences, thoughts and beliefs. While there is a lot of subjectivity in the testing procedures applied for the evaluation of theories in human sciences, testing of the theories of natural sciences is not quite as complicated. The fundamental reason for this is the fact that the subjects of study e.g. chemicals, metals, and materials etc. are non-living beings, and thus lack the emotions, feelings, and perceptions that affect the results of the research in the study of human sciences. It is possible for a researcher who is evaluating the conclusions about natural sciences drawn by a previous researcher to exactly reproduce the same conditions for the examination as were adopted by the previous researcher who had generated the conclusions originally. Therefore, as more and more researchers adopt the same test procedure and obtain the same results, this adds to the credibility and validity of the conclusions drawn by the preceding researchers, thus making the theory in natural sciences more and more convincing with each additional result. There are certain standard procedures that are adopted for conducting the research, which every researcher follows in order to test the theory. Researchers choose between qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data. Tests for the quantitative analysis of data are different from the tests adopted for its qualitative analysis. Tests most commonly used for the evaluation of hypothesis include but are not limited to F-Test, T-Test, ANOVA, multiple regression, and correlation between coefficients. After conducting the tests and obtaining the results, the reliability and validity of the tests are checked and reported in the study findings. Comparison of these factors leading to the same conclusion about a certain theory, makes that theory convincing in the eyes of the audiences. This is how knowledge evolves. Convincingness of the theories in the field of natural sciences increases when technological advancements are made based on the assumptions drawn from these theories. Success of the technology speaks of the validity of the scientific theory, and hence its convincingness. Owing to the huge role of scientific method in the convincingness of theories in the field of natural sciences, researchers in the field of human sciences are inclined towards the use of this method for the evaluation of theories in the human sciences. Most of the researches in the human sciences are qualitative in nature since the data is drawn from human beings, unlike the field of natural sciences, in which most of the researches are quantitative in nature. While both kinds of researches are data driven, yet there remains a certain level of subjectivity in the validity of data as the data comes into being from the inferences drawn by the researcher from the human responses. However, scientific method is way more reliable than any other method of evaluation of theories, irrespective of whether the research is qualitative or quantitative. Therefore, it is being increasingly used for the study of theories in human sciences. Lately, there has been a lot of research on the identification of managerial and leadership traits and styles that enhance an individual’s tendency to be successful (Herrmann and Datta; Taleghani, Salmani, and Taatian) and factors affecting people’s perceptions of homosexuality. There is an infinite array of topics of human sciences that are being researched using the scientific method. For example, “The Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), South Africas statutory research agency, conducts research that generates critical and independent knowledge relative to all aspects of human and social development” (“Social science that”). Concluding, the fundamental tool which accounts for most of the convincingness of the theories in human sciences and natural sciences is the scientific method of their evaluation. Although theories in both fields of science can be effectively evaluated using the scientific method, yet the validity and reliability of the results obtained in the research of natural sciences is generally more than that of the research of human sciences. While the convincingness of theories in the field of natural sciences can be entirely attributed to the scientific method of evaluation, theories in the field of human sciences derive their convincingness from the audiences’ intuition in addition to the results generated by the scientific research. People believe certain theories of human sciences because they can relate to them and because they feel that their personal opinions reflect in the theories. Works Cited: Hermann, Pol, and Datta, Deepak K. “Relationships between Top Management Team Characteristics and International Diversification: an Empirical Investigation.” British Journal of Management. Vol. 16. pp. 69-78. 2005. Hewett, Casper. “The Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment.” Nov. 2006. Web. 19 April 2012. . Taleghani, Gholamreza; Salmani, Davood; and Taatian, Ali. “Survey of leadership styles in different cultures.” Iranian Journal of Management Studies. Vol. 3. No. 3. pp. 91-111. 2010. “Social science that makes a difference.” Human Sciences Research Council. n.d. Web. 19 April 2012. . Read More