Are the social Sciences Really Inferior? Essay

PrologueIt is a common nonion that the affectionate sciences, as it were, atomic telephone number 18 inferior to the native sciences when it comes to being a science. Some sects in the society even questions the credibility of the claim of the accessible sciences that they atomic number 18 and so a science several(prenominal) faction of the society views hearty science as a whole as being inferior to the natural science, a number of them even does not consider mixer sciences as a science at all. The article at hand, tackles this dispute by manoeuvreing come out of the closet several shoot downs of comparison between the two bodies of fellowship so as to achieve clarity and a definitive answer regarding the matter at hand. The following be the points that the causality of the article pointed out invariability of observations, quarryivity of observations and explanations, verifiability of scheme, exactness of findings, measurability of phenomena, constancy of numer ical relationships, predictability of future day events, outdo from everyday experience, and standards of admission and requirements. The points presented by the occasion of the selection pull up stakes be pondered upon in this written report in such a manner that clarity and clearness may be achieved. In this respect, the author of this paper took liberty of dividing the work into several headsprings, just like what the original writer did, and after each heading the authors own explanation of the matter at hand will be presented. In this manner, the author hopes to nonplus at a scholarly paper that can ascertain the matter at hand.Invariability of observationsTo claim things simpler, the notion that the author of the said article wants to establish under this heading is that the natural sciences imposes a crystallize of superiority over the social sciences. This is because of the fact that the natural sciences are invariant when it comes to its object of composition, hen ce its object of record may recur. While in the case of the social sciences, since the nature of society is to change, its object of study is incorporated with variability. However, the author pointed out that there isa social science that can be considered as invariable, and that is in the field of economics. In addition to what already has been stated, the author posited the position that the only difference in the variability between the social sciences and the natural sciences is that of degree, that is if we are talking about the real world.Taking a closer look at the matter at hand, we may safely state that there is indeed a difference between the two sciences when it comes to the variability of their object of study, this is due to the number of relevant factors to be taken into account for explaining or predicting events occurring in the real world.Objectivity of observations and explanationsIt is a common notion that the natural sciences will do everything in its power to at least reduce the level of subjectivity in their field, if not to completely annihilate it. On the contrary, the society views the social sciences as imbued with subjectivity and thrive on it. Well, this is true if we look at both sciences at a glance however, taking a minute of arc look at it we may realize that even the natural sciences may have a diminutive touch of subjectivity instilled in it. This assertion is based on the following factors the scientist, who sells the experiments and different vital choke up in the natural sciences, ethical problems, and selection of a cypher in the choice of the subject for investigation.The scientistThe scientist, who conducts divers(prenominal) sorts of experiments and tests in the laboratory, in one way or the other, is still imbued with subjectivity no matter how operose he try and no matter how hard they contest it to be. This is for the fence that the individuality of a scientist cannot be eliminated no matter what because he is still a human being in the first place. respectable problemsEthical problems may influence the subject of study in the natural sciences in many dissimilar ways. Political pressure, media intervention, Churchs involvement etc. may affect the object of study in any natural sciences. This influence of diverse forces in the natural sciences may in the process saturate a subjective aspect in the object of study being scrutinized.Selection of a project in the choice of the subject for investigationThe scientist chooses the project in the choice of the subject for investigation. As it implies, the scientist will of course choose the subject matter that interests him. In this manner, the subjectivity of the scientist is being instilled in the object of study under the natural sciences.It seems that the only difference between the two sciences when it comes to the heading being tackled is that social phenomena are explained only if they are attributed to definite types of action whi ch are understood in terms of values move those who decide and act. The concern with values of the social sciences, it seems, is the crucial difference between the two. However, this does not take anything apart from the social sciences and it is clear that this ad reward is not a basis of superiority in either case.Verifiability of hypo thesisIn the case of the natural science, it is benefited with the capacity to have or conduct controlled experiments on the object of study. In this type of experiment the diverse factors that may affect the object of study are limited and controlled, that is the reason why in the natural sciences verifiability of hypothesis is workable. In the case of the social sciences, these types of controlled experiments and tests are not possible for the reason that the object of study of the social sciences deals with the society and the day-to-day living of different people, which makes it improbable to conduct experiments as such. Clearly, in this resp ect, the natural sciences have a vantage point vis--vis the social sciences. However, this does not rent that the natural sciences are indeedsuperior to the social sciences.Exactness of findingsAccording to the article, the meaning of exactness scoop founded in intellectual history is the possibility of constructing theoretical systems of idealized models containing abstract constructs of variables and of relations between variables, from which well-nigh or all propositions concerning grouchy connections can be deduced. In this respect, the natural sciences are no different from the social sciences. This is for the reason that such systems cannot be found in several of the natural sciences in several aspects in biology for instancewhile it can be found in at least one of the social sciences economics. Given this fact, it cannot be asserted that the natural sciences are indeed superior to the social sciences regarding the factor at hand.Measurability of phenomenaThe point of the author in this particular portion of the article is that there is no way of judging whether non-quantifiable factors are to a greater extent prevalent in nature or society. In this light, there can be no aspect of superiority or inferiority regarding this matter between the natural and the social sciences.Constancy of numerical relationshipsRegarding this matter, there is without a doubt that the natural sciences are in advantage if compared to the social sciences. This is due to the fact that in the natural sciences, there exist such a constant law and figures that can never be changed or alter in any manner. On the contrary, in the case of the social sciences there are no such constant laws or figures to attendant and supplement the body of knowledge in its endeavor. This is for the reason that in the real social world zero is constant but change, and it is due to this nature of the social world that constancy is removed from being achieved.Predictability of future eventsThe c ommon notion regarding the predictive power of the natural science is true, given the fact that it does not soak different factors that can alter the prediction. In other words, due to the controlled experiments of the natural scientist, prediction is not far from being reached. However, in the case of the social sciences, wherein the object of study is the society, predictability is hard to find.According to the author of this particular article, the only difference between the two sciences in this respect is that experts in the natural sciences usually do not try to do what they know that they cannot do and nobody expects them to do it. Social scientists, on the other hand, for some strange reasons are expected to foretell the future and they feel bad if they fail to do so.Distance from everyday experienceScience is viewed by many as anything that cannot be comprehended by a layman or an ordinary person. The object of study of the natural sciences are somehow not attuned and far from the day-to-day experiences and living of the ordinary people. While the object of study of the social sciences are straightaway affects the fervor of the masses. This is the reason that the social sciences are more close to the hearts of men. However, this does not say anything regarding the examination at hand.Standards of Admission and requirementsAccording to some study the IQ level of the students of physics are more advance than those students in other courses. In this basis where the foundation of the natural sciences claims that there proponents are more intelligent than those of the social sciences. However, as stipulated by the author of the said article, this does not assert anything in upgrade or against both the social and the natural sciences for the reason that thisfactors depends entirely on the school or the academia that are offering such courses. It is a given fact that the natural science students are more advance in terms of their IQ level for the reaso n that they are more adept in calculus than any other students. Nonetheless this does not entail that the natural sciences are superior to the social sciences.The Score CardTaking a closer look at the point by point comparison made by the author between the factors that may be able to point out the difference between the two bodies of knowledge, we may ascertain that there are at least ternary definitive advantage of the natural sciences with regards to the social sciences, namely invariability of observations, verifiability of hypothesis, and constancy of numerical relationships. However, the way the author of this paper sees it, these advantages are mere benefits that the natural sciences enjoys and these vantage point does not entail that the natural sciences are superior to the social sciences in any manner. On the second thought, the author of this paper thinks that there is no point of comparison between the two sciences at hand. This is because of the reason that the one is not an alternative of the other. The social sciences are not an alternative of the natural sciences, wherein we can choose one over the other.Instead, the two bodies of knowledge go hand in hand to make the complex world that we are living in comprehendible to the society. Without one of these sciences an individual person may find himself amidst a cloud of confusion and bewilderment. The factors presented in the paper do not imply that we ought not to study social sciences because of its inferiority to the natural sciences. The vantage point of the natural sciences is but a benefit that can be enjoyed by this particular body of knowledge. To sum things up, the so-called inferiority of the social sciences to the natural sciences is but a phantom that the society in general integrates to the former, viewing the later as indeed superior.EpilogueIn chapter one of the set of articles that we were asked to read, the thesisquestion presented is that is the social science really inferior t o the natural science?. On the course of our discussions and show of facts, we come to the conclusion and understanding that the natural sciences indeed has some advantage to enjoy and maximize if compared to the social sciences. However, as pointed out in the paper at hand, these vantage points does not entail that the natural sciences are superior to the social sciences in any manner. This is for the reason, as stipulated earlier the one is not an alternative or a substitute of the other. This is for the same reason that, as the author of this paper views it, there is no point of comparison between the two bodies of knowledge at hand.Indeed, there are several advantages when it comes to the nature and mental synthesis of the natural sciences if compared to the social sciences. However, these advantages should not be viewed in lieu of the superiority/inferiority debate kinda it should serve as a challenge on the part of the social sciences to maximize and make the most(prenomin al) out of the available resources of the social sciences to be able for it to comply and be attuned with the needs of the social reality.