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?

•