Natural Sciences and Human Sciences

Are the findings of the human sciences as reliable as those of the natural sciences ?

• I believe that human sciences are not as reliable as of those of the natural sciences. Natural sciences such as chemistry, physics of biology is approved through hundreds of experiments to reduce the uncertainties. Also, natural sciences can ALWAYS be justified through real life experiences. For example, inertia (natural sciences) can be proved inside a car; when the car stops suddenly, the person move forward as the body wants to continue the movement. However, when human sciences are explored, they are usually done in a certain condition to achieve the conclusions that the researcher wants. This is the reason why there is contrasting views on certain subjects in human sciences. For example, the marshmallow experiment says kids want to get the treat as soon as possible. On the other hand, it might be just because the kids were hungry as they were left in a room for approximately 2 hours without any water or food or toys to play with. If they were given something else to gain their attention, the results might have changed.

To what extent can information in the human sciences be quantified? 

• Even though human sciences are not so reliable compared to natural sciences, information in the human science is a good resource to refer to. For example, the study of belief healing shows that when people believe in something - such as God(s), the doctor etc - the brain thinks that it will actually cure their illness. This might not be true to everyone, but we can still refer to this. For instance, few years a go, there was a news given that a person with terminal cancer cured himself as his daughters 'lied' to him that his cancer is curing!

To what extent do the knowledge claims of the social sciences apply across different historical periods and cultures?

• 
  

Unpacking TOK essay prompt

"Facts are needed to establish theories but theories are needed to make sense of facts.” Discuss this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge. 

1-Identify (give definition) for key terms.

Facts: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

Theory: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

2-Brainstorm specific examples in two AOKs you would use to answer the prompt.

Math: when finding volume using calculus- we don't have specific way of proving it but, by using areas of graph, we can calculate the volume. Furthermore, induction is all about assuming it is true when n=1 and n=k+1.

• WOK: My own knowledge - I have learnt this in class

Science: It is a known fact that the dinosaurs existed. However, the extinction of dinosaurs have to be explained in order to show it is fact. In order to do this, people came out with theories on how they are extincted.

• WOK: My own interest on the topic made me research about this

3- What are the assumptions of the claim?

Math: For proving areas of graph, we assume that dx is equal to a constant length that is 'un-measurable'. This is a knowledge I gained from studying maths in class. Additionally, induction makes an assumption that if a statement is true for n=1, n=k and n=k+1, any number will be true. This assumption might be wrong since some numbers might be an 'exception'. Furthermore, some people claim that 1+1 is not equal to 2, and is equal to 1.999999999... just because 8/9=0.888888 so 9/9 should equal to 0.99999... This might sound dumb, but some people believe in it!

Science: when considering dinosaurs, we have to assume in the first place, that the bones discovered are the bones of the dinosaurs. Since no one survived the era of dinosaurs, we can only assume that the bones found are REALLY the bones of the dinosaurs, not just bones of random animals put together.