Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?

Over the years, there has been an anthropological debate on whether scientists should study human behavior objectively or subjectively. Traditional sciences attempted to collect anthropological information the way natural sciences do: with a clear method, isolation of variables, and, most importantly, an objective standpoint. However, modern sciences deal with "reality" as a relationship between the observer and the observed. It has become recognized that objectivity cannot be achieved, and is, in itself, a knowledge issue: how can someone determine what is purely objective or subjective? With this in mind, and as an economics student, as well as a physics one, I constantly have this debate of whether it is even possible to achieve such characteristics. Why are the "sciences" split into human and natural? Subjective and objective? As the scientific paradigms evolve over time, especially with groundbreaking discoveries such as quantum mechanics, it is seen more and more how one type is not as different from the other, how the human sciences may have a way of being objective, and the natural sciences (yes, physics and biology included), subjective.

Some sociologists have tried to adopt the methods of the natural sciences by using quantitative means and results instead of qualitative ones. In sociology, this is called "positivism," and it reflects a traditional approach to human sciences. Comte, a positivist, argued that sociologists should not be concerned with internal meanings, motives, feelings and emotions of individuals. According to him, these mental states only exist in an individual's consciousness, making measuring and other quantitative scientific methods hard to use. Instead, he argues that sociologists should look for correlations between different variables, just like in math or any natural sciences. Examples of this are the different studies of suicide rates, membership of different religions, among others. These are very useful when looking for culture studies as a whole. However, correlations are not always absolutely correct; for instance, there is a "correlation" between the lack of pirates and global warming over the years. Although there is a statistical correlation, it does not mean that the global temperatures are increasing because of the lack of pirates -- one does not affect the other. Sure, this may seem funny at first, but if we look at every so-called "correct" correlation this way, the quantitative evidence used goes to waste. This is a great example of how objectivity when studying human behavior should not always be used.

Many argue that it is crucial to accept that modern scientific research is relativistic and that objectivity is a "naive realism" of traditional sciences. Cultural relativists are some that agree with this belief. They argue that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be interpreted in terms of his or her own culture. They are also known for using cross-cultural methods essentially to develop any meaningful scientific comparative statements. However, if there is no structure for how the information can be collected, according to this group of scientists, how can one study compare to the other? In a sense, it is important to be able to repeat the same "experiment" twice and achieve similar results, as is seen in the natural sciences. With anthropologists, this cannot be achieved because so much of the investigation is in relation to the cultural environment of the scientist in charge. Without objectivity, cross-cultural comparisons are like comparing apples to oranges.

The recurring example of objectivity is the natural sciences. It has consistently been proven to be a methodologically successful area of knowledge and that it is the closest to objectivity that we have ever gotten. Even within this area, the most quintessential of all three sub-sections (Physics, Chemistry, and Biology) is the physical one, isn't it? Some laws and theories have withstood against time and are still taught until today, making this the most objective of studies, right? Wrong. Quantum mechanics is a great example of how century-old objectivity can be crumbled in a second. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the better you know the position of a particle, the less you know its momentum, and vice versa. This goes against any "unbiased" collection of data belief in the realm of physics, and even natural sciences. And we're not talking about humans here -- we're talking about particles. Even the concept of relativity is questioned; the speed of a man walking inside a train in his perspective may be 1 meter per second. However, from the perspective of a person outside the train as it is moving, may be 45 meters per second. The difference is so big, and how can we be sure that one is "more correct" over the other?

Ultimately, we cannot classify one type of science as objective and the other subjective. Both human and natural sciences show examples of one or the other, and that shows how we should take both characteristics into consideration when studying humans, or even particles (as mind-blowing as that might seem).