Lunch Conversations

Stephanie Prufer
August 23, 2013
Hunt

Natural Sciences Blog Response

Biology: Hi Mr. History! I’ve been meaning to ask you something.

History: What?

Biology: Well two classes ago, one of my students asked me how the Sociology major works, and I told him to go talk to the History department. Did he ever go? He never got back to me!

History: He did not come and for a valid reason, Sociology is NOT History. Sociology belongs to the social sciences department!

Biology: We have a social sciences department?

History: I just don’t understand why a Biologist wouldn’t know about the Social Science department, as both have a similar method of conducting experiments. Natural Sciences, like Biology and Physics, consists of meticulous observations, following a determined methodology, just as the Social Sciences. The Biologist will plan out an investigation for research through the use of a hypothesis, a research question, materials, procedure and finally, evaluation, just like the sociologist, who will examine a culture within the same parameters. Both of the sciences undergo the same process in order to attain results, even though they are observing two distinct phenomena!

Biology: Exactly, we “are observing two distinct phenomena”. How dare you say that just because our research methods are alike we are part of the same category? We don’t study petty little ‘human’ problems. We study real issues, with real, tangible solutions that are backed up not only by chemistry, but also by Physics and Mathematics. There’s this subjectivity in History, though, that is also present in the Social Sciences, so in that manner, it becomes part of the History department.

Sociology: Hey guys! What you talking about? This seems pretty heated; can I just take a seat? This would be great for the new class I’m teaching, “The nature of arguments”.

History: So now you’re talking about observer bias? … And you think that only happens in History because we judge historical facts by opinion… Interesting, but I hope you know that this would increase the personal validity of a claim, as it is taking into consideration the personal account to an event, making it valid, unlike you seem to think. This is called ‘PERCEPTION’if you didn’t know. Have you ever heard of Clever Hans?

Biology: Clever what? [To Sociology] Hi Sociology.

Sociology: YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF CLEVER HANS?! Interesting. Let me just take note of that. Oh, I should make sure I control my variables adequately and repeat these lunch conversations so that I can ensure that it’s a wide spread knowledge issue.

History: Clever Hans was a horse that seemed to be completing arithmetic problems at impressive rates, or so the Biologists thought, but they realized that Clever Hans was not so clever and he was just responding to the cues given by the scientists. You look for what you want the outcome to be in an experiment. My student Stephanie even told me that she gets frustrated when something happens in her lab that she wasn’t expecting, because she’s already got this preconceived idea of what should occur.

Biology: Sure, maybe this is true to some extent, but History presents this to an even larger degree. You’re whole subject area is based on observations, like the social sciences. You are a victim of the Haw-Thorne effect!

History: What about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? When populations of people are observed in anthropology or in sociology, their actions might be altered because of their presence. For instance, in the documentary “Red Skin” about the indigenous tribes in the Amazon, it states that the tribe acting differently because the camera crew was observing them; so it cannot be taken as the truth for their behavior. Similarly, the positions of the particle are altered by the mere act of observing them. Therefore, one can wonder what other uncertainties exist in the natural sciences that are not accounted for.

Sociology: History is right! We are a science, look at our name, Social Sciences. We have the same research methods, we have similar observer biases and we are both trying to prove something about either human kind, or the environment we live in.

Biology: But don’t you think that some of the subjectivity in the Social Sciences is more interrelated to the subjectivity present in History, with the different schools of thought?

Sociology: Sure, but the underlying piece is in the science. We conduct research that is valid under the scientific method.

Biology: I’m outraged. The discovery of the DNA Double Helix is equivalent to the research on the media’s effect on children? That can’t be. I’m leaving. Bye!

History: Go ahead, but just keep in mind that in your terms, you will never find the answer. You have to open up your mind and take in other considerations. You cannot simply view the Natural Sciences as set on stone. You have to think of the ways of knowing, and take into consideration that some of the flaws you pointed on about History are valuable to such a subject area, because it requires personal observations. … Anyway, there is no way to determine if the natural sciences are ‘better’ than the social sciences! All subject areas include meticulous research that in a way or another must be interpreted by the observer. These observations often skew the results, depending on the perception of the scientist or historian. No subject area will ever take “data” at face value!

Sociology: You got it History! This is a complex knowledge issue that cannot be solved during lunchtime. And with this issue, comes various other questions, such as “to what extent can we trust the sciences to predict results?” or “To what extent does history examine issues to a greater degree for personal knowledge” or even “To what extent do observer biases play a role in mathematics and physics, the ‘harder’ sciences?”

History: Ok. I’m done with this, too much theoretical information for one day. Bye!

Word Count: 978