Theories in the Human Sciences and Natural Sciences - Essay Example

WHAT IS IT ABOUT THEORIES IN THE HUMAN SCIENCES AND NATURAL SCIENCES THAT MAKES THEM CONVINCING? Various theories in human and natural science have very convincing arguments and even though some of them have been disapproved by scientific evidence, they are still compelling up to date. This has causes me to wonder why such theories persuasive arguments which makes them so convincing. I find anthropology which is one of the human sciences very perplexing because of the theories that various scientists have come up with in this area of study to explain humanity and its origin. I am equally interested in biology, a natural sciences science which has attracted many convincing theories, some of which have been proofed by scientific evidence to be untrue! During my studies and daily experiences, I keep on asking myself why various theories in human and natural sciences are so convincing. Some scholars claim that theories in human and natural sciences are convincing because of their simple approach of explaining natural phenomena1. I disagree with this argument because I believe that it is the ability of these theories to predict natural happenings which makes them so convincing. This paper describes theories in biology such as evolution, spontaneous generation in addition to those in anthropology such as the Blank Slate theory and Phrenology. The aim of the paper is giving a critical evaluation and illustration of the reason why such theories are so convincing even after being disapproved. What I have learned so far is that the theories in human and natural sciences are very compelling and as a result some of these theories have convinced us for a long time even though scientific evidence has proofed them otherwise. In biology, spontaneous generation is a theory which in the modern days seems to be ludicrous but for a very long time people were meant to believe that life emerged impulsively without involvement of eggs. This theory which was brought forth by Aristotle was so convincing because of the observations in the natural happenings such as when maggots spring out of decaying carcasses. The theory of spontaneous generation was based on early observations and arguments of thinkers such as Anaxagoras and Anaximander which made it even more convincing. These thinkers supported the fact that life could impulsively appear from inanimate matter which made people believe that even human life spontaneously came into being without the involvement of the reproduction process. The support of the theory by some scientists in the 1700s made people believe that it would be tested and verified by science hence they were compelled to believe what the theory proposed. This makes me value the importance of scientific evidence because without it we could be ignorant about natural happenings for a long time. The spontaneous generation theory is no longer convincing thanks to the scientific testing which proved it wrong. This theory was therefore crumbled and nobody believes it in the modern days. The studies of Luis Pasteur helped to nullify this theory because he proved that maggots cannot appear in carcass which is stored in a sealed container. The scientific invention of a microscope is attributed to the disapproval of this theory because it was used to present evidence that the maggots which appeared on a rotting piece of meat are formed by microscopic organisms and never by spontaneous generation. This illustrated how time and technology have helped to find the truths about natural sciences. Biology and its theories are supported by previous studies by renowned thinkers making them even more compelling. The pioneers of various theories in human science are usually analysts and historians who use convincing illustrations by comparing events and phenomena from the previous studies and observations2. The Blank Slate Theory for example was so convincing for a long time because it used the theories of psychologists such as Sigmund Freud to support the idea that a person is not born with traits or personality and instead they acquire them from their experiences. This theory is very old and is controversial even up to date. The proponents of this theory argue that it is through education and personal experiences that one’s traits are built. Observation of the natural happenings in the real world makes people so convinced with this theory because experiences and education have an impact on the behavior of individuals and thus believed to contribute to the personality of these people. Anthropology seeks to provide the true origin of humanity which is made possible through scientific testing of various theories. The Blank Slate theory is less convincing because the discovery of the role of genes in determining the traits and behavior of a person. This has been enabled by time and technology which has helped in the study of gene combinations and how they make children similar to their parents. From observation, we all realize that the attributes of parents and characteristics such as smiling, language and speech, gait and voice are usually passed to their children who exhibit the same behaviors. This makes us less compelled to believe the assertions of the theories in human sciences3. Theories in human sciences have been tested and evidence given by their proponents which makes them convincing to us. Phrenology is an example of a theory which has convinced people for a long time because of its testability. This theory claimed that the traits that characterize each individual might be traced to a specific part of the brain which is convincing because each part of the brain is proved by scientific evidence to be responsible for unique functions. Unless a scientific theory has been disapproved by scientific testing, it is likely that it will be undisputed by some people and therefore makes them convinced by the allegations of the theory. Since a theory is described as a non-disputed idea, which is either expressed by a person scientifically or historically, the theories in human and natural science become convincing when they pass the tests. The theories which pass scientific testing make me to question the accuracy of the tests. Time and technology has helped us come up with scientific evidence to disapprove false theories. Phrenology was later proved to be false by scientific evidence and is no longer accepted in the field of science4. This theory failed to pass scientific test and as a result it is no longer accepted in any scientific discipline. The falsehood in the theories such as phrenology convince some people to believe their assertions illustrates that the theories of human and natural science may easily compel people to acknowledge their claims. What I recommend is that the criteria of approving the theories of human and natural sciences should apply the procedures used by scientists to approve a study so that people do not acknowledge false theories. This is because some theories are accepted despite their untrue arguments. Theories in natural science are very convincing because of the detailed scientific studies on them which were used to describe and authenticate them5. Evolution theory for example convinced people for a long time because Charles Darwin did experimental studies which described the theory in a manner that makes people fail to doubt it. It is said that the differences in perception among people, scientists, and analysts lead to the varying levels of acceptance of some theories. This is true because scientist within the same discipline of science may have different opinions on a theory. Some theories have a divine explanation and may be regarded to be sacred. Their capabilities of convincing individuals therefore are determined by the religious beliefs of people. Because human and natural sciences have a component of divine power, which makes things happen, then it is possible for theories given by various authorities to be more convincing. My evaluation of many theories in the human and natural sciences concludes that they are very predictable. This makes them even more convincing. The natural happenings explained by natural science theories can be predicated making people to be convinced they represent facts, which have passed scientific tests and proof when such theories are likely to be non-factual and false6. I prefer using the theory of evolution to illustrate my point because it convinced me despite my religious teachings which disapprove it and the fact that the theory has not been proved scientifically. The approach to which the ideas of the theory were perceived was based on mere belief. It is notable that the theories that replace those disapproved by scientific tests become even more convincing than the original theories. This shows that theories in human and natural science may be convincing because the level of scientific research and technology is limited at a particular period of time. Later when improved scientific technology is used, better explanation arise which disapprove some theories. These become more convincing up until better theories would replace them. This illustrates development in science and growth in both the human and natural sciences because of development in scienceand enhancement technology, whichis used in scientific experiments7. It is factual that the accuracy of scientific experiments improves with time. In the natural sciences, there are chances for anomalies in observation and mathematical errors especially in early centuries when scientific instruments were less developed as compared to the modern innovative scientific equipment. For example the spontaneous generation theory would not be disapproved at the time because there were no microscopes to study microbes8. Scientific testing is a dominant tool in proving theories in the human and natural sciences because it presents undisputable facts which is based on evidential material. Therefore scientific tests are vital in explaining phenomena otherwise false theories will remain convincing to many people for a long time. Simplicity of a theory can make it very convincing for example the simplicity of the heliocentric theory made it more convincing as compared to the epicycles, which explains complex phenomena about the movements of the earth in relation to the moon and the sun9. The ideas in the debate on what makes theories in natural and human sciences so convincing is likely to go on for a long time. This is caused by the fact that such theories have been used to predict natural phenomena making people so convinced that they are true. On the other hand there are arguments that since some of the theories in natural and human science are explained in simple way which is congruent to the understanding of the ordinary mind, they therefore convince people easily. Time and technology has enabled scientists to test theories and thus determine their authenticity which has caused false theories to be disapproved. The implication of this debate is the application of the advancement in scientific research and technology to enable scientists to test various theories which would result into newer knowledge and explanation which will replace the older theories. Tables Theory (Natural Sciences): Biology How convincing? Why not convincing? Evolution Evolution theory convinced people for a long time because Charles Darwin did experimental studies which described the theory in a manner that makes people fail to doubt it. It is said that the differences in perception among people, scientists, and analysts lead to the varying levels of acceptance of some theories such as the theory of evolution. Some theories have a divine explanation and may be regarded to be sacred. Their capabilities of convincing individuals therefore are determined by the religious beliefs of people. The belief in creation and the disapproval of scientific studies on reproduction and genetics makes evolution less convincing. Spontaneous Generation This theory which was brought forth by Aristotle was so convincing because of the observations in the natural happenings such as when maggots spring out of decaying carcasses. The studies of Luis Pasteur helped to nullify this theory because he proved that maggots cannot appear in carcass which is stored in a sealed container. The scientific invention of a microscope is attributed to the disapproval of this theory because it was used to present evidence that the maggots which appeared on a rotting piece of meat are formed by microscopic organisms and never by spontaneous generation Theory (Human Sciences): Anthropology How convincing? Why not convincing? Phrenology Phrenology is an example of a theory which has convinced people for a long time because of its testability. This theory claimed that the traits that characterize each individual might be traced to a specific part of the brain which is convincing because each part of the brain is proved by scientific evidence to be responsible for unique functions. Phrenology was later proved to be false by scientific evidence and is no longer accepted in the field of science. This theory failed to pass scientific test and as a result it is no longer accepted in any scientific discipline. The Blank Slate Theory The Blank Slate Theory was so convincing for a long time because it used the theories of psychologists such as Sigmund Freud to support the idea that a person is not born with traits or personality and instead they acquire them from their experiences The Blank Slate theory is less convincing because the discovery of the role of genes in determining the traits and behavior of a person. This has been enabled by time and technology which has helped in the study of gene combinations and how they make children similar to their parents References Cait A. 1997, The truth of Science: Physical Theories and Reality, Science News, 152(23), pp. 367-367. Goldberg C. 2000, The truth of Science: Physical Theories and Reality, Science News, 157(23), pp. 354-354. Felin T., Foss N., Ferraro F., Pfeffer J & Sutton R, 2009, Social Reality, the Boundaries of Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, and Economics/How and Why Theories Matter. Organization Science, 20(3), pp. 654-675,679-681. Kraus T. 2011, Settled Science or mere theories, Fleet Maintenance, 15(3), pp. 36-36 Peters J., 2001, Scientific Laws, Principles, and Theories: A Reference Guide. School Library Journal, 47(5), pp. 88-88. Roberts E., 2005, From the History of Science to the Science of History: Scientists and Historians in the Shaping of British Marxist Theory. Science & Society, Vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 529-558. Starmark Z., 2009, Theories of Human Nature, Journal of Religion &Science, Vol. 44 Issue 4, p894-920. Zabel H., 2011, Learning progress in evolution theory: climbing a ladder or roaming a landscape? Journal of Biological Education, Vol. 45 Issue 3, pp.143-149 Read More