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

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

Human sciences are more like natural sciences even though it utilizes history as an instrument in some of its practices. When talking about science, an example could be math, where there is a process to solving an equation or even discovering one. What approximates human sciences and natural sciences is their methodology, procedures, rules, while history is just an additional factor that may help while predicting. However, what might interfere in a sociological experiment is the scientist’s involvement or bias on the subject, what might lead him to interpret the experiments differently. An example is the Stanford experiment, at a certain point one of the main researchers got so involved in the experiment that he could no longer be just an observer, which could affect the outcome negatively due to its connection. Nevertheless, some sociologists say that its impossible to do experiments with humans without having an ideology, Marxism for example, however coming in a situation where the person will have to make conclusions about the data but they already have a certain view towards that situation makes its assessment restricted. Now looking at the activity we did in class with the alpha and beta groups. I was the one being observed, so for me my behavior and alpha’s behavior was somewhat based on instinct that reflects how I approach and deal with things in my day to day. However, we only noticed everything we had done and how we reacted after we discussed with everyone in class what had just happened. Annie and Ms. Hunt as the observers had a totally different interpretation and could deduce and understand our actions differently, yet we just acted on it without really thinking it through. At a point, we forgot what categorized the beta group and we were just ourselves, greedy. We just saw the effect of what we had done after we stopped and saw how we were each divided by barriers of chairs and tables trying to protect our possessions. If I was the observer, I might have interpreted some other way, so my outcome again might have been different. Still, we could have been much more extreme with our actions if we new no one was observing us. If we were being tested on something and we new there is was a person judging us on what we did, our reaction and the turn out might be different, more controlled and well thought. Due to the fact that, people don’t like to be analyzed, criticized and judged.

Philosophy, religion and science are forms of understanding the world. So, when it comes down to physics (which is part of sciences), if there is a hypotheses that says for example that everything liquid turns solid and everything sold turns into gas depending on the condensation or the boiling point, the person is making a universal affirmation. However, this was a hypothesis but if the person goes through procedures and tests it out, it becomes a fact, a rule. While in history, there are always some uncertainties, contradictions and bias, where it can hardly be found in natural sciences. But, when it comes down to sociology (part of human sciences) its method is to try to understand how society works and to forecast what might happen or certain behaviors. This is a prediction based on patterns seen by specific groups. When it comes to large groups of people, the prediction might be harder due to a large scale of diversity, making it tougher to have common factors to it.

Overall, the involvement of humans in experiments might affect its outcome; nevertheless the methods used make human sciences much more like natural sciences then history. Even though history is constantly used in areas of human sciences such as anthropology.