Natural vs Social Science as Different Activities - Essay Example

Topic: arguments in favor and against the view that Social-sciences and natural Sciences should be viewed as different activities Name: Registration No.: Institution: Tutor: Due date: Position for and against the idea that natural science and social science should be viewed as different activities Social sciences include various concerns and information drawn from geography, politics, economics and sociology. There has been lack of agreement with regards to whether natural-science and social-science should be treated as different activities (Blevis and Stolterman, 2009). Despite these challenges, it has not been possible to apply the relationship between natural science and social science with great success (Craig, 2013). This paper presents the arguments in support of the idea as well as arguments against the idea and provides a conclusion regarding the arguments, justification of the arguments by providing reference to journals that support the arguments and the knowledge gaps in understanding natural-science and social-science by proposing the improvements that need to be made to enhance understanding of natural science and social-science. It has been observed that these sciences are focused on specialization since their conception. As a result of increased knowledge in various disciplines, the universal approach towards understanding things has become difficult to understand. Most scientific studies are based on specialization and mots published materials such as journals are organized in a particular discipline lines. This has resulted into a limitation on universal development of scientists as well as creation of barriers that has prevented collaboration between specialists in sciences. Consequently, a number of arguments have been raised whether social-science and natural science should be viewed as similar activities. An example of an argument that has been raised to support the idea that natural science and social science should be viewed as different activities is that, the distinction between natural-sciences and social-sciences result from cognitive differences in the intentions of the investigator, and not based on inability to apply scientific generalization to the subject matter of human activities (Fuller & Moran, 2001). The distinction between social-science and natural-science is that there is no variation in methods of study but there are differences in the aims of the scientists and their interests. For instance, natural scientists try to focus on causes of scientific events and their impacts on the world while social scientists focus on impacts of scientific studies on the interactions with the society (Hartshorn et al, 2005). This argument has a number of limitations. For instance, through these forms of sciences, it is not easy to determine advance dispersion of differences in exploding shell. The implication of the differences between social-sciences and natural sciences is that there is a barrier in understanding the results and methods from natural sciences in the social sciences (Ioannides & Nielsen, 2007). On the contrary, as a result of these differences, it will be possible to apply collaboration so that research in social-sciences and natural sciences is broadened. The approach towards understanding of the discussions about differences and arguments against the view is that there is the need to look for a shared goal in research, rather than basing emphasis on the differences. Another reason why natural-sciences and social-sciences should be treated as different activities is that natural sciences are focused on aspects of biology, physics and engineering (Le Coze, 2005). On the other hand, social sciences are based on subjects such as economics, psychology and political science. It is found that specifications were not used to refer to the social sciences and natural sciences. There is also no insurmountable gap between methods of the natural sciences despite the existence of differences in cognitive purposes and the manner in which their projects are explained (Leahey & Reikowsky, 2008). It is also a view that is not based on experiments and they focus on complex phenomena. It uses statistical bureaus to explain social sciences but they are misleading. This is because the materials used to study social sciences are historical and this implies that the outcomes are a component of complexity of forces. However, the relationship between natural sciences and social sciences has not been easy to understand because due to specialization nature of the sciences which makes it difficult to understand the domains used by one study and differentiating it from another domain. As a result of difficulty in understanding the jargons used by natural and social scientists, there is confusion and it has been difficult for natural scientists and social scientists to recognize each other (Kjølberg & Wickson, 2010). Another reason why natural-sciences and social sciences should be viewed as different activities is that natural sciences models use broader approach towards understanding a scientific problem while social-science is based on description of a phenomenon. The limitation of this argument understanding of understanding the association between social-sciences and natural sciences is that there has been lack of understanding between specialists in either area of sciences. This is attributed to the fact that social sciences consider their ideas to be superior and natural scientists also think in a similar manner in support of their idea towards natural science. In addition, there are differences in jargon which makes understanding of the two forms of sciences difficult to relate (Hicks, Fitzsimmons & Polunin, 2010). There is a limitation that these perceived differences can result into inability to interpret the results and methods from natural sciences in the social sciences. It has also been difficult to broaden the scope of approaches used in the research and these methods do not allow obtaining solutions to problems beyond the scope of their individual approaches. Thus it has been suggested that in order to overcome differences relating to paradigms, it is necessary to determine shared goals in research and emphasis should not be put on paradigmatic differences. Another reason that has been used to support the idea that social sciences and natural sciences should be treated as different activities is that in natural sciences, quantitative methods of research are used while in social-sciences qualitative methods are used. This implies that in natural sciences, the main focus is to determine characteristics of the topic under research that can be measured or quantified while social-sciences are based on description of scientific phenomena (Giller et al, 2008). Natural sciences have also been considered to involve replication of results while social sciences do not involve replication of results. However, the idea that natural sciences and social science should be viewed as different activities is opposed by the idea that they are both aimed at providing a summary of something, defining the reason for the summary and providing a result. They are also based on particular theories. There are also a number of arguments that have been proposed to oppose the idea that natural sciences and social-sciences should not be viewed as different activities. This is because there are certain similarities between the two types of sciences that result into their generalization. For instance, there is increasingly intricate interweaving between the socio-economical context that inspire people in their living environments and the impacts on physical environment (Flyvbjerg, Landman & Schram, 2012). The implication of this argument is that it is possible to apply principles of natural science to understand the socio-economic conditions in the living environments and how the physical environment is affected. The limitation of this argument is that there is lack of respect between natural scientists and social scientists who consider their sciences as central way in which the truth can be discovered, thus considering their science as dominant. For instance, they do not rely on empirical findings because they claim that these findings are not used in policy making. The implication of this limitation is that it is necessary to do research by researchers who understand each other’s worth and demonstrate a level of modesty about the nature of their own science. Another argument that opposes the idea that natural-sciences and social-sciences should be treated as different activities is that they are methods that can be used to create a strong interpersonal focus and engage in discussions with others.in addition, the idea of viewing natural-sciences and social-sciences as similar activities results into other opportunities for collaboration that enable understanding of science in a broader horizon. Thus, there is the need to select natural-social scientists who have the capacity to participate in natural-social science collaboration. However, the gap in achieving this function is that there are few publications which emphasize the need of collaborative approaches. When these publications exist, there will be a case for collaborative research. It is also suggested that creation of interdisciplinary journals with high impact can create an opportunity for working in collaboration between social scientists and natural scientists (Borrego & Newswander, 2008). 1. Conclusion According to the above discussions, there are many characteristics of social sciences that distinguish them from natural sciences. However, it is found that these differences have resulted into lack of in-depth understanding of either social sciences or natural sciences. This has been contributed by the idea that natural scientists and social scientists consider their ideas to be superior. Thus it has not been possible to collaborate in understanding scientific studies. There are a number of strategies that can be used to ensure collaboration between natural-scientists and social-scientists. These include creation of a temporary team that includes disciplinary scientists who are able to collaborate in a single project. Through this approach, it will be possible to implement the recent insights from either disciplines in the collaboration. The limitation is that it will require a considerable amount of time in order to overcome initial and possible lack of understanding that result from the differences in these disciplines. Another strategy that can result into integration of natural sciences and social sciences is by creation of long-term team or creation of a team that consists of scientists from either discipline who collaborate in a number of projects. This results into a limit on the need to invest more time and efforts in overcoming the differences between the two disciplines, but as a result of the fact that scientists are involved in interdisciplinary research, their contact with own disciplines will not be strongly developed, resulting into lack of awareness of the insights in the interdisciplinary research. This paper also shows that the argument whether social-sciences and natural sciences have a number of limitations that need to be addressed. These include the fact that they are based on abstractions and statistical methods used to explain social sciences are not convincing. Thus, there is no convincing argument whether social-science and natural science should be considered as a activities that are related. 2. References Blackstock, K. L., E. A. Kirk, and A. D. Reeves. (2005). Sociology, science and sustainability: Developing relationships in Scotland. Sociological Research Online10(2): 28. Blevis, E., and E. Stolterman. (2009). Transcending disciplinary boundaries in interaction design. Interactions16(5): 48ñ51. Borrego, M., and L. K. Newswander. (2008). Characteristics of successful cross-disciplinary engineering education collaborations. Journal of Engineering Education97(2): 123ñ34. Craig, E. (2013). Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge. Flyvbjerg, B., Landman, T., & Schram, S. (2012). Real social science: Applied phronesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fuller, T., and P. Moran. (2001). Small enterprises as complex adaptive systems: A methodological question? Entrepreneurship and Regional Development13(1): 47ñ63. Doi: 10.1080/089856201750046801. Giller, K. E. et al. (2008). Competing claims on natural resources: What role for science? Ecology and Society13(2): article 34. Hartshorn, J., M. Maher, J. Crooks, R. Stahl, and Z. Bond. (2005). Creative destruction: Building toward sustainability. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering32 (1): 170ñ80. Doi: 10.1139/L04-119. Hicks, C. C., C. Fitzsimmons, and N. V. C. Polunin. (2010). Interdisciplinarity in the environmental sciences: Barriers and frontiers. Environmental Conservation37(4): 464ñ77. Doi: 10.1017/S0376892910000822. Ioannides, S., & Nielsen, K. (2007). Economics and the social sciences: Boundaries, interaction and integration. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Kjølberg, K. L., & Wickson, F. (2010). Nano meets macro: Social perspectives on nanoscale sciences and technologies. Singapore: Pan Stanford Publishing. Le Coze, J. C. (2005). Are organisations too complex to be integrated in technical risk assessment and current safety auditing? Safety Science43(8): 613ñ38. Doi: 10.1016/J.Ssci.2005.06.005. Leahey, E., and R. C. Reikowsky. (2008). Research specialization and collaboration patterns in sociology. Social Studies of Science38(3): 425ñ40. Read More

Another reason why natural-sciences and social-sciences should be treated as different activities is that natural sciences are focused on aspects of biology, physics and engineering (Le Coze, 2005). On the other hand, social sciences are based on subjects such as economics, psychology and political science. It is found that specifications were not used to refer to the social sciences and natural sciences. There is also no insurmountable gap between methods of the natural sciences despite the existence of differences in cognitive purposes and the manner in which their projects are explained (Leahey & Reikowsky, 2008).

It is also a view that is not based on experiments and they focus on complex phenomena. It uses statistical bureaus to explain social sciences but they are misleading. This is because the materials used to study social sciences are historical and this implies that the outcomes are a component of complexity of forces. However, the relationship between natural sciences and social sciences has not been easy to understand because due to specialization nature of the sciences which makes it difficult to understand the domains used by one study and differentiating it from another domain.

As a result of difficulty in understanding the jargons used by natural and social scientists, there is confusion and it has been difficult for natural scientists and social scientists to recognize each other (Kjølberg & Wickson, 2010). Another reason why natural-sciences and social sciences should be viewed as different activities is that natural sciences models use broader approach towards understanding a scientific problem while social-science is based on description of a phenomenon. The limitation of this argument understanding of understanding the association between social-sciences and natural sciences is that there has been lack of understanding between specialists in either area of sciences.

This is attributed to the fact that social sciences consider their ideas to be superior and natural scientists also think in a similar manner in support of their idea towards natural science. In addition, there are differences in jargon which makes understanding of the two forms of sciences difficult to relate (Hicks, Fitzsimmons & Polunin, 2010). There is a limitation that these perceived differences can result into inability to interpret the results and methods from natural sciences in the social sciences.

It has also been difficult to broaden the scope of approaches used in the research and these methods do not allow obtaining solutions to problems beyond the scope of their individual approaches. Thus it has been suggested that in order to overcome differences relating to paradigms, it is necessary to determine shared goals in research and emphasis should not be put on paradigmatic differences. Another reason that has been used to support the idea that social sciences and natural sciences should be treated as different activities is that in natural sciences, quantitative methods of research are used while in social-sciences qualitative methods are used.

This implies that in natural sciences, the main focus is to determine characteristics of the topic under research that can be measured or quantified while social-sciences are based on description of scientific phenomena (Giller et al, 2008). Natural sciences have also been considered to involve replication of results while social sciences do not involve replication of results. However, the idea that natural sciences and social science should be viewed as different activities is opposed by the idea that they are both aimed at providing a summary of something, defining the reason for the summary and providing a result.

They are also based on particular theories. There are also a number of arguments that have been proposed to oppose the idea that natural sciences and social-sciences should not be viewed as different activities. This is because there are certain similarities between the two types of sciences that result into their generalization.

Read More