Presentation on theme: "Human & Natural Sciences. DO NOW Give an example of a theory that you find convincing and one that you do not find convincing from either the Human and/or."— Presentation transcript:
Human & Natural Sciences
DO NOW Give an example of a theory that you find convincing and one that you do not find convincing from either the Human and/or Natural sciences.
Natural Science The natural sciences are those branches of science that seek to elucidate the rules that govern the natural world through scientific methods. There are five branches of natural science: astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics and the Earth sciences (geology, oceanography etc.)
Natural Sciences Natural sciences exclude all methods that are not based on direct observation. In most cases, natural scientists validate their theories by providing testable and repeatable results.
Human Science Human science is the study and interpretation of the experiences, activities, constructs, and artifacts associated with human beings. It includes the studies within fields of the social sciences and humanities, including history, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and economics.
Human Sciences However, some of the phenomenon of interest to human scientists, such as thoughts and emotions, cannot be directly observed. Therefore, the methods used by human scientist to justify a theory can sometimes be more subjective and less convincing.”
Human Sciences For example, psychologists conduct experiments where they observe actions (behavior) which is based on outer sensory observation (such as Pavlov’s experiments.) These experiments have repeatable results.
Human Sciences However, the use of outer sensory observations alone is a limited method for many psychologists, since our thoughts and emotions cannot be observed like our actions. Some phenomena that psychologists are interested in, such as personality, thinking, and emotion, cannot be directly observed.
Do N w (One minute of Zen) Are theories in the Human Sciences more likely to be directly applicable to the knower at a personal and emotional level than theories in the Natural Sciences?
Not long ago, I read an article titled “Temper Tantrums: What Your Toddler is Trying to Tell You (and How You Can Help.)”
Here is an excerpt: “But the scientists also discovered that, contrary to popular belief, toddlers aren't just melting down out of anger, they're also feeling sadness at the same time….The impression that tantrums have two stages is incorrect. In fact, the anger and the sadness are more or less simultaneous. Once children have gotten past what Potegal calls ‘the peaks of anger,’ they're more willing to be comforted.”
After reading this article, I began to comfort my toddler after his peak of anger (rather than telling him to stop or by threatening him with taking away his toy etc.) I was skeptical and believed that I was rewarding him for his bad behavior. The article explained how toddlers do not have as many cognitive 'tricks' up their sleeves to deal with these situations. Result?
The article was correct. After waiting out the peak of anger, I began to comfort my son with a hug. This was very effective. And the solution provided was directly applicable to me (the knower) at a very personal and emotional level.
We study nature from without, culture from within. The natural scientist must take as little for granted as possible and seek hard evidence. But in the human sciences one cannot act in this manner: to study human life, it is necessary to begin from our understanding of other human beings, of what it is to have motives and feelings.
Bias Fanelli (2010) found out that 91.5% of psychiatry/psychology studies confirmed the effects they were looking for, which was around five times more often than in geosciences (a natural science that deals with Earth, e.g. geology or geophysics)
Do N w (Zen Moment) Can you think of an example where two very different approaches(theories) coexist within a single human science ?
Human Sciences It is not uncommon for very different approaches to coexist within a single human science (Adam Smith vs. Karl Marx in economics, Behaviorism vs. Psychodynamic approaches in psychology etc.) If two different models give different explanations of phenomenon, how can we decide which is correct?
Natural Science In most cases, natural scientists validate their theories by providing testable and repeatable results.
There are always exceptions! The most exciting “theory” in physics for the past 30 years is “String Theory.” As of today, there is no experimental evidence to support “String Theory”… “String theory, at least on paper, seems to have succeeded. Gravity not only fits in with quantum behavior -- it is actually required by string theory. But here's the problem: string theory is exciting and elegant, but it’s still just a bunch of equations on paper. So far it has failed to offer any testable predictions…String theory has been around for 35 years. No previous major physics theory in past centuries has needed more than about ten years to be proved. So what’s taking so long?
Peer Review Peer review is the evaluation of performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work in that field.
Despite its advantages, there have also been some criticisms of Peer Review.
Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since He remarks: “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self- serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.”