It is true that we cannot measure social data with numbers in the same way we can in the natural sciences. Although all humans are unique individuals, we can share fundamental patterns of behavior, which can be measured and analyzed in the human sciences, both objectively and subjectively. Whether we should or not study it based solely on empirical evidence, however, is another question. While there are some significant gains on treating human sciences quantitatively, there are also advantages in using our humanity to study humans.
The social sciences have one characteristic that sets them apart—the human species is both the observer and the observed. This means that the object of study is rational, can adapt its behavior to different situations, and has a schema, or a cognitive map built through culture, education, and all the other factors that determine who you are. Nonetheless, no matter how difficult it is to come to conclusions about human behavior, every field in the human sciences needs a good amount of empirical evidence on which studies can be based. Plato defines knowledge as “justified true belief.” According to this definition, we need to find ways of measuring and experimenting in the human sciences so that these findings can be considered a part of human knowledge.
Another reason why human sciences should be studied objectively is that some problems occur both in the natural and human sciences. Confirmation bias, for example, is when a researcher tends to prove what he or she believes in. However, it is a lot more difficult to prove your own opinion when most of your research is based on facts, such as in biology, physics, and so on, than when you are simply studying human behavior. Especially when we already have some preconceptions about humans, partly a result of our own schemas, it is difficult to see the other side of the argument. In the New York Times article "Divided They Fall," the author Nicholas Kristof talks about a study conducted with students from Dartmouth and Princeton. In the experiment, researchers showed them clips of a 1951 football game between both institutions. Asked to act as impartial referees, students had to determine which side cheated the most. The results were astounding Dartmouth students thought Princeton had cheated the most and vice-versa. Therefore, even though the two sides were watching the same game in the study, their brains came to two completely opposite conclusions. That shows confirmation bias—students would never admit their team cheated more than the other.
When we are doing scientific research we may also face another problem, the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy—the belief that because events occur together, one must cause the other. Although this fallacy may also occur in the natural sciences, it is much more common and challenging in the social sciences, where you can’t always isolate the dependent and independent variables, as well as control all the other variables. For instance, in one experiment, a psychologist might try to draw the relationship between teenage depression and parental divorce in the subjects’ childhood (please note that this is an arbitrary example; it’s not based on any real research). Now, if the results show that most kids whose parents divorced have depression in their teenage years, the researcher can’t automatically conclude that divorce causes depression. Imagine how many other uncontrolled variables come into play—the person’s environment, personal experiences and even genetics! Therefore, the researcher cannot just assume that one event causes the other simply because they are related. It doesn’t mean we have to ignore correlations—no—we just have to be careful not to make assumptions and let our judgment impair data collection and the pursuit of knowledge.
Other problems, however, are aggravated in the social sciences. The phenomenon known as the Hawthorne effect is one of them. The Hawthorne effect states that when you study people, their behavior will change and adapt to the presence of the experimenter. I was extremely pleased when I recognized such occurrence in action this week at school. It was the High School Open House, when the school is open for parents to visit and see students and teachers in their natural habitat. Weirdly enough, however, I noticed that all teachers decided to wear nice clothes that day, even though they hardly ever dress up like that. If any of us were anthropologists studying teacher behavior, we would not recognize the fact that teachers were reacting to the presence of parents, and thus our analysis of what we’d consider “natural behavior” would be wrong. However, this example results from my own personal bias as a student and my schema, so even then my analysis of the phenomenon would not be the best possible one. Nonetheless, this shows that using our humanity, perception, and previous knowledge is necessary if we want to paint the “most accurate” picture of our object of study. The same applies to the human sciences in general, where some subjectivity, such as using the tools humanity has given us (judgment, emotion, ethics) may add even more value to our investigation, and ensure no empirical mistakes are made.
Studying the social sciences objectively with a tad of subjectivity, however, is not enough to completely understand human behavior. In any research, there are two types of statements: positive, or statements of fact, and normative, or statements of value. Normative statements are important in letting us evaluate how important something is, but that kind of value claim cannot be made from within the social sciences. Thus, studying the social sciences objectively but with external influences like ethics is the only way to study the human sciences objectively, so that it complies with Plato’s definition of knowledge, while also preserving the field’s uniqueness. The social sciences are essential for us to understand human behavior, but they must be accompanied by a wider philosophical standpoint on social justice and individual rights.
WC: 980
Nice work.
ReplyDelete