Human sciences, as the name suggests, revolve primarily around the study of human behaviour on an observational basis. Thus, the meticulous observational study holistically encapsulates the characteristics specific to human sciences. That being said, despite the common ground of being termed as "sciences," the human sciences and the natural sciences share very little in common. Accordingly, the main distinction comes into play when essentially considering the reliability of the human sciences in contrast to that of the natural sciences. The main problem with the human sciences lies in the fact that human behaviour on the whole is entirely unpredictable and differs from person to person, therefore making the possibility to establishing overarching generalizations a conflicting notion. For instance,in the natural sciences, regardless of the number of times one was to test for the products produced by a combustion reaction, the ultimate results would be retained to be carbon dioxide alongside water. Nevertheless, human sciences have an inherent stark contrast in this aspect as the unpredictability of humans essentially leads to dynamic variabilities in results generated perhaps even simply hours apart: an individual's answer of their favourite subject before and after receiving grades on the most recent test.
2. To what extent can information in the human sciences be quantified?
The quantification of information generated in human sciences is especially a controversial element in regards to this Area of Knowing due to the aforementioned unpredictable nature intrinsic to humans. It is almost close to impossible to genuinely be able to distinguish between an individual's public projection and their true demeanour, for example. We cannot for one know what is brewing in an individual's mind at any given point in time, which only adds to the complexity of deriving reliable results in terms of the human sciences. Branching off of these ideas, following are specific examples of instances that make the quantification of the human sciences questionable:
- The observer effect: People gravitate to becoming more conscious if are aware of the fact that they are being observed and hence an inherent bias taints the observation approach to human sciences which is often the approach adopted in this field. For example, if students are assured that inspectors will be on the walks, keeping a watch on them for an entire week, it is natural for a student to adapt to his best possible behaviour during this week, despite the fact that in reality this is not the person he is.
- Free will: Free will alludes the phenomenon of humans being able to dynamically express themselves without being confined to one margin of thought. Thus, this translates to manifestation of unpredictability in disposition as an individual who claims to be supportive of Trump one moment may claim the complete opposite in the next moment.
3. To what extent do the knowledge claims of the social sciences apply across different historical periods and cultures?
Due to the incontrovertible fact that human sciences tend to exemplify results generated from data based on humans, it is reasonable to infer that the collection of a decent amount of qualitative and quantitative data that could potentially help identify a trend, may take generations. In fact, due to the ethical element involved, whereby the the extensive manipulation of factors could result in artificiality or adverse impacts, it is only logical for human scientists to allow nature to provide appropriate experimental conditions to learn more about the human nature.
Moreover, going back to the initial question itself, the constant dynamic shifts in human society unequivocally highlights the fact that knowledge claims established during one historical era or culture would not be applicable to a different generation or cultural group. For instance, an 1800s claim that American families tend to be the most close knit due to the effectual work-time societal balance, may not be a claim that is applicable today. In fact, in this case, perhaps the work-time balance may not be the variable that was even altered, instead external influential factors like the advent and propelling of technology in the last decade could have been the external factor that caused the falsification of the claim to the same society but in a different time period. Hence, all in all, while theories, models and laws oft serve as the rudimentary elements of the natural sciences, the prevalence and relevance of these aspects in the human sciences may not necessarily be as applicable as real life is a complex web of interdependent factors that are perpetually evolving and thus bestowing the human sciences with a dynamic label.
No comments:
Post a Comment