An Introduction to Science Studies - Research Proposal Example

SOCIAL SCIENCE INTRODUCTION Humanity’s quest for knowledge is insatiable. If one goes through the books of human story, one will be amazed at the tenacity, persistence and perseverance of renowned scholars and intellectuals regarding their pursuit of knowledge. However, an unprecedented event happened during the modern period – the birth of science. 16thhistorian claim that the nascent of science is between 16th century and 17th century. The entrance of science in the quest for knowledge has basically shifted the paradigm with which the search for it has been embarked. In addition to the presence of science as a new authority in knowledge comes with it the methodology that distinctly differentiates it from other quests and search for knowledge – experimentation. Experimentation, as first coined by Francis Bacon, is the method or procedure use by science as it tries to address the many questions that come into its purview. Due to experimentation as method or means of inquiry and in acquiring knowledge, science has virtually attained the stature that creates the belief or perception that science is in principle sacrosanct. And that whatever knowledge claims that science made or will make in the future should be considered as objective and is a proper representation of the multifarious reality that confounds humanity as it tries to understand the rudiments of existence. However, things are not as delineated as scientists want it to be. In examining the researches and studies of science regarding the natural and physical world, it seems that there is neither confusion nor gargantuan problem in the application and results of the method of science. In fact, experimentation affirms the claim that science is objective. Since, out of scientific studies, humanity now has the means and ways with which they can explain natural phenomenon which are “observable” (Carnap, 1995, p35). And more importantly, science provided us the means with which we can predict future events. or the happening of the same event in the future. All of these are made possible because scientific studies have shown that events happening in the natural world are governed by cause and effect relationship. And that this causal relation existing between events can be observed and presented via induction and generalisation. Further more, the notion of the regularity of events happening in nature has opened the idea that “causal relation consists in the statement of exception less repetition” (Reichenbach, 2000, p 68). Thus, affirming the notion that regularity as an “if-then always relation” (Reichenbach, 2000,p 71) is something that can be deemed observable in the dynamics of nature. Moreover, the regularity of nature affords us not only knowledge of things but also gives us the ability to explain why things are happening in a particular way and not in any other way. If a deviation is observed, the arrived at and affirmed law, principles and theories are not deemed wrong. But the deviation is seen as a new question that needs to be addressed using the method of experimentation. Such a clear-cut application of experimentation and solutions derived out from it has made natural sciences valid, legitimate and authoritative source of knowledge. Unfortunately, the case for the social sciences is not the same. Although there is no question regarding the legitimacy of some of the claims made in the social sciences there are some scholars who are basically questioning the legitimacy of social science as a science proper or a science in the light of natural sciences. Thus, raising the supposition that the term social science is a misnomer in itself since social sciences are not science in itself. Is this proposition valid? SOCIAL SCIENCES: NOT A SCIENCE? The claim that social sciences are not authentic science lies on the assertion that the objectivity of natural science is not achieved under the social sciences. For the reason that the object, specimen or phenomenon which is utilised as the staring point of investigation is dissimilar. What do we mean by this? Things and phenomenon that are observed by the natural scientists are capable of exhibiting regularity, and repeatability. Thus, the events as they transpire can be understood using causal relation. As such, phenomenon, whether directly observed or indirectly observed by the natural scientists provide us with an ‘objective’ knowledge that can be generalised and thereby, equipping us with the power to predict its happening in the future. While on the other hand, phenomena that are studied by the social scientists is erratic and unpredictable. Why? Because the focus of inquiry is the individual persons themselves. The supposition that persons are difficult to understand because the “peculiar uniqueness and irrepeatability of human activities makes them inaccessible to causal explanation” (Hempel and Oppenheim, 2000, p62) boils down to the notion that regularity that is observed in physical phenomena is something that is not observable to human behaviour whether singly or in group. Further more, human beings react to situations not solely based on the current stimulus or impetus but their reactions to a given situation is a result of the “previous history of the individual”(Ibid., p 63). More over, human beings are shaped and motivated by different factors and these motivational factors are “not causal analysis” (Ibid). Thereby, presenting the fact that human behaviour, even if we use teleology as an approach in exchange for causal analysis, is simply ineffectual in coming up with a valid generalisation that will help us to completely understand human dynamics, human ethos, human interaction and human behaviour in the same manner that we understand the physical world. However, the big question is ‘are those claims true?’ SOCIAL SCIENCE: A SCIENCE I maintain that social sciences are legitimate forms of science in the same degree as that of the natural sciences because of the following reasons: First, the claim that human beings as ‘specimen’ of knowledge is erratic and therefore proffers the impossibility of being understood in the same manner that chemicals and metals are being studied by the physical scientist is completely false. It is false on the proposition that there is a claim in physics, that movements of individual atoms themselves, which are the basic components of the metals and chemicals, are in themselves erratic and therefore not known to scientists. What the scientists claim to know are the group action or activity of the atoms. Since, the group activity of the atom can be observed and therefore, charted and be tools for prediction.. using this claim as a parallel to human studies, it may indeed be very difficult to study human behaviour individually and in isolation. But the study of human behaviour in relation with the factors that shape, develop, harness, define and identify, one group or culture over another is feasible. It ensures or presents to us the common denominator that may present as the conduit in connecting one person to another as we try to analyse human behaviour. Secondly, although human behaviour may not be understood and plot using the traditional method of the natural or physical sciences, we can still use other means for charting human behaviour. And one possible channel that may be used is the commonality inherent in the ethos or motivation behind human action. I am not saying that all human beings act under the same impetus or motivation. What I am trying to raise is the notion that human beings in taking a particular course of action has sufficient reason or purpose in embarking on a particular path instead of trying to take the other option. Although one has to be constantly on guard against a false dilemma, which is considered as a limitation on human imagination in tackling solutions to problems, still what is clearly perceptible in human activities, in human situations is the fact that human beings see their acts as purposive regardless of the motivation that may go behind it. And this primordial importance on teleology, on purposiveness of the actions human beings can be utilised as the conduit that may connect each and every individual actions undertaken in the public sphere as well as in the private sphere. Being such, motivational or teleological explanation can be appreciated as a “special kind of causal explanation… in which some of the antecedent conditions are motives of the agent whose actions are to explained”(Hempel & Oppenheim, 2000, p 64). Third, there is a prevailing question regarding the claims of natural science concerning objectivity itself. Current studies show that scientists are never free from bias or prejudice., implying the notion that whenever scientist perform their particular experiments, they carry with them their entire backgrounds, ,leanings, interest, education, limitations and the likes.(Hanson, 1958; Kuhn,1962;Bernstein, 1988) So much so that there are claims that scientist see only that which they want to see. Further more, it has been stipulated that progress in sciences is measured not really via the ability to comprehend and explain away phenomenon. Rather, new theories are technically developed in science on the basis that scientist themselves shift allegiance from the existing theory to wards the more interesting and novae one. This shifting of allegiance is known as “paradigm shift” (Kuhn, 1962). Therefore, it can be claimed that new, better, and more interesting explanations regarding reality are hypothesised and evaluated not because there is a new reality that is at the fore but because the experts in the field of science have shifted from one paradigm to another. Fourth, the three buttresses of science namely induction, cause and effect relation and generalisation have subjected to a very strong criticism by David Hume. According to David Hume(1740), from what power does science maintain its objectivity when in fact it is possible that the causal relation that we are seeing in events are not really causal relations per see but rather is merely a result of events happen in succession one after another, and thus making two distinct events not necessarily connected but merely contiguous in space and time. As such, the causal relation that we are claiming to be objective, according to Hume, is but a figment of our imagination. On the strength of induction and generalisation, Hume has a very simple critique. He claimed that from where or what right we get in extending our knowledge of the past and the present to the future event when in fact the future is laden with uncertainty. Uncertainty for the fact that nobody has yet experienced and thus comprehended the future. So, therefore, who can speak intelligiblely about it? Thus, what human beings can do is to make an educated guess to what may happen in the future. Being such, the claim that scientific knowledge is certain is a misnomer. Instead, what we can assert is the idea that scientific knowledge is an educated guess. In light of this, is there really an intrinsic difference between the natural sciences and the social sciences? Lastly, we have seen in the contemporary period the fact that scholars are already claiming that there is no one hold or explanation for what they call objective reality ( if there is one) what we may possibly have is a multiple approaches to that which is real. I am not saying that there is no longer an authority in knowledge nor in the search and explanation for truth. What I am merely forwarding is the notion that all human quest for knowledge are of equal importance and weight so that nobody or no one is better over another. For what is of integral importance is the fact that human beings’ search and quest for truth is insatiable. SCIENCE AND ORGANISATION As contemporary organisations move away from the dynamics of hierarchy in decision-making and have embraced the principle of decentralisation. And that the core and the blood of organisations are the individual human persons who are working in each cells and departments of the company (Womack et al, 1990). That one of the major principles that binds the contemporary vision of each organisation is client leadership, human capital as the source of knowledge of the company. and that success in the business world is no longer measured by the profit gained but also brought about by the human dimension, human involvement in the achievement of goals. All of these coupled with the recognition of human being not as automation but as “autonomation” which means material concepts touched and innovated by human hands. This shift in organisations has paved the way for a more humanistic thrust in the contemporary world of business. . In lieu with this, what I am merely trying to point out is not really whether one has gained an objective knowledge regarding Reality or one has entered into the realm of objectivity while others are kept wallowing in the quagmire of subjectivity. I think, just like what lean management has offered in the production and manufacturing world, science, to be more specific natural and physical science at that, should learn from organisations, quest fro knowledge is a not a competition of existing paradigms. Rather, just like any contemporary organisations, quest for knowledge is a continuous challenge to all human persons. It is the challenge to develop, to progress, to change towards a more responsive and effective means in meeting the demands of time.(Hatch, 2002; Trice & Beyer, 2005) Being such, aside from the achievement of the goals and visions of the company, what matters, in equal weight and degree, is the manner on how goals are achieved. it is not just the profit, but it is the notion of people working together, people working as a team in order to modify that which it touches, in order to deliver goods in excellent condition to the real authority and drivers of the market - the customers. CONCLUSION Social sciences are sciences in their own right. To speak of it as if it is lower that the natural/physical sciences is, I honestly believe, perpetuates the notion of dichotomy, dualism in the quest or search for knowledge. I have been using the phrase “quest for knowledge, search for truth ‘ in the entire text for I assuming that science regardless of its kind is human endeavour, human quest for understanding and explanation of the phenomena that he /she has to live with as he/she exists in this world. Science whether it is a social science or a natural or physical science is an essential and fundamental branch of knowledge that enables human beings to better understand and appreciate the earth the she/he lives in and the world that she/he has created. The question regarding the legitimacy of social science as a real science comparable in stature with that of the natural science is a but a mere improper appreciation of the ability of human beings to embark in a quest for knowledge, in a search for truth. In the same light, contemporary organisations present to us a vision of a symbiotic, mutual relation between sciences is possible, and that in the end the real winner is every individual persons in this world. More over, as hopes are pinned on the idea of progress in science as the conduit for a better life not just for those who are already affluent but for all the peoples of the world let science learn from contemporary organisations. And be not lost in the vacuity of its supposed knowledge. *word count - 2543 REFERENCES: Carnap, R. (1995). “Theoretical Laws and Theoretical Concpts” In M. Gardner (ed), Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, New York: Dover Publications. Bernstein, R. (1988). Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis,Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hanson, N.R.(1958). Patterns of Discovery, Cambridge: Camdridge University Press. Hatch, M.J. (1997) Organization Theory: Modern Symbolic and Post-Modern Perspective,new York: Oxford University Press.. Hempel, C.G. & Oppenheim, P. (1984). “Studies in the Logic of Explanation” In J. Ziman (ed) An Introduction to Science Studies: The Philosophical and Social Aspects of Science and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reichenbach, H. (1984). “ The Laws of Nature” In J. Ziman (ed) An Introduction to Science Studies: The Philosophical and Social Aspects of Science and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trice H.M. & Beyer, J.M. (2005) “Changing Organisational Cultures” in J.M.Shafritz, J.Steven Ott & Y.S.Jang, Classics of Organization Theory,Belmont CA: Wadworth. Womack,J.P., Jones, D.T., & Roos, D. (1990).The Machine that Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production, New York :Harpercollins. Read More