Are the human sciences more like the natural sciences or more like history?

To answer this question effectively, the major aspects of the natural sciences and history must be analyzed, and then compared to the major aspects of the human sciences.

First of all, it is important to consider that the natural sciences have a very set paradigm. I realized just how true this was while writing my ToK response, as I realized that science really doesn’t need to study the phenomenon of God, because it could not move forward without this very set paradigm. History, on the other hand, has no set paradigm and there are countless schools of thought that can overlap with each other at certain times, but they are all unique in their methodology and views. For example, you have the revisionist school, the functionalist school, the intentionalist school, the orthodox school, and the Marxist school, all of which are unique in how they study history. In this sense, the human sciences are more similar to history. In economics, for example, you have the Keynesian school, the neo-classical school, the Marxist/socialist school, the Austrian school, the Chicago school, and countless others (simply look up “economic schools of thought” to see the vast array). Psychology has many schools of thought as well, along with sociology. Therefore, in terms of paradigms and schools of thought, and what is mainstream, the human sciences are similar to history.

Next one should consider how these subjects collect information. History’s ability is rather limited. They are left to ruminate over primary sources from the era they are studying, limiting their ability to have access to as much information as possible, and leaving them unable to gain new information (save for an event like the Soviet archives opening up in the 1990s). Natural scientists, meanwhile, are able to run tests and collect data as often as they want (assuming they act ethically). In this sense, the human sciences have a little in common with each. Economists, sociologists, and psychologists can run experiments and collect data, but there are a few problems in doing so. First of all, the data they collect is not exactly concrete. They can collect information about populations, incomes, mental health factors, and things like that, but these do not have the same relative truth built into them that things like forces or mating cycles do. Additionally, natural scientists are able to control variables and repeat experiments. The human sciences cannot do this, because every situation involving humans is unique based on place and time. After a study has been done, the human sciences are left to ponder and analyze it, but doomed in that they can never exactly replicate it. And again, the studies the human sciences can do are already subjective and difficult to find truth with because of the great role observers can play in studying humans and the difficulty of controlling variables tightly. In conclusion, this makes the human sciences like history, but the fact that tests are being run at all makes them somewhat similar to the natural sciences.

The last important aspect to consider is the conclusions that are reached. In the natural sciences, data is meaningful. If there is a relationship between two variables, it is relatively easy to explain the relationship. There is room for the interpretation of data like there is in history, but conclusions reached by scientific research is mostly reliable (especially because of scientific peer review, though again there is room for the observer to act on their biases and preconceived notions when reviewing data). There is more or less an inherently correct answer in the natural sciences. In history, conclusions that historians reach are not concrete, and there is no inherently correct answer. The rise to power of Hitler, for example, has many explanations by many different schools of thought. There is no correct answer--only what historians believe and what makes the most sense to them based on their biases. The reason this occurs is the sheer number of variables. In the natural sciences, the relationships between variables can be systematically defined, this is not even remotely the case in history. So where do the human sciences fall? As I have stated, they fail to collect concrete data, and the data itself is subjective because of how big of a role the observer tends to play. The Stanford Prison Experiment is one example of this, and another came in a book I read called Freakonomics, where a white student from UChicago studied the economics of crack dealing in south Chicago, but his very presence changed the outcome of the experiment. Even if concrete data were found in the human sciences, the number of schools of thought analyzing it would lead away from a clear answer.

With all of this in mind, the human sciences are more like history. I want to briefly add that over time, I believe the human sciences will become more like the natural sciences though. There was a point in time where the natural sciences were descriptive (like human science today), and I believe that advances in what humans can research have the ability to change this field.

[Word Count: 852]