Theories in the Human Sciences and Natural Sciences

The theories which have been developed in the natural sciences and the human sciences, more so than the other areas of knowledge, are generally accepted by people to be convincing and true. When analyzing why these theories are convincing, it is necessary to also consider the methods of verifying scientific theories. How do we verify that scientific theories are justified and accurate? This knowledge issue is central in our understanding of why theories in natural and human sciences are convincing. In the science areas of knowledge, hypotheses proposed by experts are testable. Hence, studies and experiments can be conducted which therefore produce data and evidence. It is the fact that empirical data is available to support scientific conclusions that makes theories in the human sciences and natural sciences convincing.

In biology class, we learned about the discovery of the structure of DNA. James Watson and Francis Crick used X-ray crystallography images of DNA, produced by Rosalind Franklin, to generate a theory of how DNA is structured. Watson and Crick inferred that the DNA had a double helix structure, based on the information that they observed in Franklin’s famous Photograph 51.  This demonstrates the dominant ways of knowing used are sense perception to observe the collected data, in this case the X-ray crystallography images, and reason to interpret the data and develop an explanation for the evidence, which was that DNA has a double helical structure. Knowledge derived from sense perception and reason is typically considered more objective, and is often more universally accepted, than knowledge derived from emotion which is perceived as more subjective and more of a personal knowledge. Since theories in natural sciences are fundamentally based in sense perception of empirical data and reasoned interpretations drawn from this information, these theories tend to be quite convincing to most people.

However, a counterclaim is that the majority of people rely on language as the main way of knowing scientific theories. People must accept the resulting theories from scientific studies based on the sense perception and reason of others, specifically the scientists who conduct the experiments. From the perspective of scientists or experts in the natural sciences field, the results of experiments can be clearly observed and witnessed for themselves. This means that natural scientists most heavily rely on their own sense perception and reason. However from the perspective of a non-scientist, the arguments made and theories proposed must be believed as true since non-scientists cannot conduct the experiments themselves. They must rely instead on the results communicated to them by scientists, making the primary way of knowing for non-scientists language. This is a limitation in our ability to verify theories in natural science and accept them as convincing.

The area of human sciences also has theories which are based in sense perception and reason. In my IB Psychology course, we learned about many different theories which were supported by the evidence from various studies conducted throughout history. One example of a theory we learned was classical conditioning. Classical conditioning is the process of pairing a neutral stimulus, or a stimulus which does not generally produce a reaction or response, with an unconditioned stimulus, which is a stimulus which normally evokes a reaction or reflex. If the neutral stimulus and unconditioned stimulus are repeatedly presented together, then over time the neutral stimulus alone will cause the same response as the unconditioned stimulus, which is then called a conditioned or learned response. This theory was developed by the physiologist Ivan Pavlov, who conducted studies on dogs using the unconditioned stimulus of food, which produced a reflexive response of salivating. Pavlov presented the food to the dogs simultaneously with different neutral stimuli, such as the sound of a metronome. Over time the dogs began salivation just by hearing the ticking of a metronome alone. 

This example presents the knowledge issue: to what extent can the results of studies, especially those conducted on animals, be applied to humans in real life? This knowledge issue addresses the applicability of results in studies to real life. After I learned about classical conditioning, I found that it did in fact apply to my own life. When my figure skating coach played a certain song when I got on the ice, she would tell me to start warming up my footwork and practicing drills. After a while, I began to automatically begin warming up when she played that song. Even when I hear the same song when I am not skating, I reflexively think that I have to start warming up since this neutral stimulus has become associated with warming up for me. In this circumstance, the theories of human sciences are very applicable and apparent in my own personal life, which is another reason why theories in science are often viewed as convincing. Because knowledge and theories in other areas of knowledge, such as history or mathematics, are not as easily apparent in a vast majority of people’s lives, these theories may not be as convincing as the theories in human and natural sciences. The effects proposed in human sciences are often manifested in our daily lives. We can observe the theories of human sciences in our own behavior and the behavior of the people around us every day. W can also witness for ourselves that the theory of gravity in natural sciences acting upon us every day. These instances that we see theories in science in our own lives are further evidence in support of the theories, making them seem highly convincing.

A counterclaim to this, however, is that the cause for perceiving theories in the natural and human sciences as convincing is not based in reason or logic. Humans tend to have biases toward all areas of knowledge, whether positive or negative or neutral. People generally associate the natural science and human sciences with facts, evidence, and objectivity. Because of this, the theories in these areas of knowledge can often be accepted as accurate without critically examining and analyzing the theories. In my TOK class, we discussed a study which claimed that watching the television show Spongebob Squarepants reduced children’s attention spans significantly, and reduced their performance on a problem solving test. Because this study was an experiment conducted in the field of human sciences, people believed the results and found the argument convincing. These people accepted the study as true before taking the time to critically analyze the study. In reality, the study was conducted on only a small number of non-diverse children who were not even in the age range of the show’s target audience. Additionally, the children were not tested for problem solving ability or attention span beforehand as a control.  This demonstrates that people may find an erroneous and limited study or theory to be convincing based on the faulty justification that it is a “scientific experiment”.

The science areas of knowledge are generally associated with meticulous review and critical examination. Most people think of scientists as checking and testing their not only their own work thoroughly, but also the work of other scientists. The areas of natural and human sciences are seen, quite accurately so, as extremely critical fields. This is a major reason why the theories of scientists are accepted so easily. Additionally, the experts are typically perceived as more knowledgeable and perhaps more intelligent than experts in other areas of knowledge. For example, in the area of the arts, not only is the knowledge based more on emotion, but people tend to believe that becoming an expert in the arts requires somewhat less education. Therefore, people who are not artists assume that a greater number of people are able to be considered experts in the arts, as opposed to the sciences where a high-level of education must be received in order to become an expert. Because the experts in human and natural sciences are considered by many to be highly educated and thoroughly critical of their work, non-scientists easily accept the theories of science as true.

It becomes clear that the justification for a “convincing” theory in the natural sciences and the human sciences is not always the same. Among the ways of verifying scientific theories are observing evidence of the theories through sense perception, analyzing data and evidence through reason, accepting the knowledge of scientists shared though language, and accepting claims blindly, based on emotion. In general though, it is the theories which not only have significant amounts of empirical data supporting them, but that we also are able to observe substantial examples of in our own lives that we find them convincing.