Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?

Mariana Lepecki
IB TOK II--Hunt

Objectivity and Subjectivity: the Struggle

One of the first things that struck me when selecting this particular question was my own knowledge issue regarding the word “objectively.” As someone who is fond of natural sciences, I have believed that “objectivity” was synonymous to “accuracy,” for the former can help increase the effectiveness of an experiment. As psychologist Elaine Vauguan stated: “the experimental method is one of the most powerful tools for scientists to identify what are the causes of particular outcomes and effects” (“Psychology: The Human Experience”). But can an objective experimental method really produce valid and accurate results in the human sciences?

According to Oxford dictionary, objectivity is defined as “not being influenced by personal feelings” when considering facts. But by numbing our emotions, are we not also numbing an entire way of knowing? Following the premise that humans are emotional by nature, then wouldn’t it be more logical for the species to be studied subjectively?

            It may seem logical, but in practice subjective research and its qualitative data have been regarded by some not to be as valid as objective studies and their quantitative results. This is especially the case when it comes to methods such as Participant Observation, for “events are interpreted through the single observer's eyes […] Clearly one's own views can come in to play” (“Observation: Participant Observation”).

I experienced this conflict with researcher bias during the “alien” activity, for I had a hard time detaching from my own perception and schema. Because of this, I constantly found myself describing scenarios in my journal using particular human jargon, such as “laptop,” that would have been unknown to a foreigner. Nevertheless, although I was not successful in repressing my schema while conducting this type of research, I can’t simply discard the merits of subjective observation, since my obvious lack of experience with this methodology also affected my ability to take on a neutral observant role.

For instance, renowned Anthropologist Wade Davis was very successful in his use of Participant Observation when studying the people of Chichero in Peru. When discussing the traditional run through the mountain region of the area that he participated in, he concluded: “you go into the mountain as an individual, but through exhaustion, through sacrifice, you emerge as a community that has once again reaffirmed its sense of place in the planet” (Davis). Here, Davis reveals his perspective on the struggle and fulfillment that takes place during this traditional event, an insight and understanding which may not have been obtained had he simply observed the group from a distance.

            However, though these emotions may have been greatly insightful for Davis’ research, this way of knowing can sometimes hinder the validity of research, especially when it comes to emotional hijacking. Take Stanford’s famous Zimbardo prison experiment, for example. As the psychologist himself stated, he became so caught up in his role as the prison warden that he was angered when a college asked him about the variables of his study: “To my surprise, I got really angry at him (…) It wasn’t until much later that I realized how far into my prison role I was at that point” (Zimbardo). Thus, this extremely subjective involvement of the researcher with his own study jeopardized his ability to follow his experimental design.

            But too much objectivity also has its downsides. For instance, when analyzing the Stanley Milgram experiment objectively, one might agree that his experimental methodology seems reasonable. But the manner in which the test subjects are treated is alarming. When noticing that the applied shocks were seemingly unbearable to the disguised actor, some volunteers asked to stop the experiment. However, they were forced to continue against their own will (“Obedience to Authority”). Therefore, the level of objectivity in this case, though not negatively impacting the results of the study per se, led to an unethical treatment of test subjects; one that could have perhaps been avoided had the researchers analyzed the design of study with a more subjective eye.

            In conclusion, returning back to the first part of the question, as it is evidenced by Participant Observation, we don’t solely study humans objectively. Nevertheless, the level of objectivity and subjectivity at hand may vary depending on the subject matter being discussed, as cultural anthropology, for example, may not require as much experimental research in comparison to areas in psychology.

            But what about the second part of the question? Should we study humans objectively? Not necessarily. Taking into consideration the insight that subjective observation can provide, as seen with Davis’ work, purely objective research only provides a more quantitative view of human behavior. Moreover it can also clash with ethical implications. Of course this doesn’t mean that human studies should be completely subjective, for emotion and personal schema can also hinder the accuracy of results. Therefore, human study requires a flexible balance between these two methodologies, for we will never be able to obtain a holistic understanding of our species if one of these sides is ignored.

Works Cited:

Davis, Wade. "The Worldwide Web of Belief and Ritual." TED: Ideas worth

Spreading. Web. Feb 2008

"Obedience to Authority The Experiments by Stanley Milgram." Stanley

Milgram Obedience Experiments Authority Study 1974 Psychology. Web. 23 Aug. 2013

"Objectivity." Oxford Dictionary (British & World English). Web. 23

Aug. 2013.

"Observation: Participant Observation." UC Davies Psychology. Web.

23 Aug. 2013.

"Psychology - The Human Experience - Lesson 02 - Research Methods in

Psychology."YouTube. YouTube, 24 Jan. 2013. Web.

Zimbardo, Phil. "Stanford Prison Experiment." A Simulation Study of the

Psychology of Imprisonment. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Aug. 2013.

.

Humans Are Not Objective

Annie Groth

TOK II--Hunt

22 August 2013

Prompt: Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?

The connotation that comes with the word “human” usually derives other words such as “unique,” “intelligent,” and “complex.” Though it is admirable that us humans have come so far in the food chain, along with great development comes great complexity. To try to objectively observe even a single person is already a huge challenge. Perhaps that is why people pay such huge amounts of money for psychotherapy—we can’t even figure out ourselves. So the question asked here is actually two: do we study humans objectively and should we do it? Answering those questions might just be as intricate as actually studying a human.

To begin with the first question, it is hard to affirm entirely that we already do study humans objectively if humans are the ones who observe humans. This knowledge issue can actually be more complicated then it seems. Because perception is the main form of gathering knowledge in the human sciences, it is hard to say then that we do study humans objectively. Each person’s perception already comes with certain biases. That is why certain human sciences, such as anthropology, are often not given the value they should because others question how much of an anthropologists observations are not tainted by their own backgrounds. However, it would not be practical for such a science to be very objective and not perceptive. An anthropologist would observe in a very scientific manner what people did, when in fact what the people might be doing could have a nonobjective, sentimental value. For example, a funeral could be observed as simply a body being placed in a wooden box then placed below the ground, but an anthropologist’s job is to discover that this action is a like a ritual that has to do with religion, choice and culture. Though then the objective observations might be more excused from bias, a subjective approach can provide it with a deeper understanding of reality.

The more complex question though is should we study humans objectively. One of the main associations of objectivity is with the area of knowledge of science and its scientific method. However, in order to have an experiment that follows the scientific method there must be an isolation and quantification of variables. If humans were to be one of these variables though there would be a huge difficulty in quantifying them. This is evident in now outdated claims such as that first-borns are more successful and all males have a hidden sexual desire to conquer their mothers. How could these claims be scientifically and objectively identified? Is there even a way to measure sexual attraction, especially at younger ages? Because many subjective claims on humans have been made without proof, we should try to observe the human sciences more objectively. However, the idea that humans and their characteristics are too complex to quantify indicates studying them objectively would not be of much value.

Besides the fact people themselves are hard to quantify the reactions they may have is even harder to objectively work with. There could be numerous reasons to why someone would act the way they would. An example of this can be seen in Stanley Milgram’s Obedience to Authority Experiment. In this experiment Milgram, a Yale psychologist, tried to determine how far people would be willing to shock others because an authority figure (in this case a scientist) asked them to. The shocked person was an actor and of course unharmed but the observed subject who controlled the shocks was not aware of that. Milgram discovered 65% of people put in this situation “shocked” the other person to the maximum danger level. Because the experiment was so successful, Milgram created variations of it. That is when several variables that were not taken into account in the experiment started to become apparent. In all cases willingness to shock decreased such as when the shocked person was holding the shocker’s hand, the experiment was done in a less laboratory-like room, and even when the scientist was not wearing a lab coat. Because humans are affected by so many different variables they might not even be aware of, trying to isolate just two of those variables to objectively observe a human would not be realistic. Because of this in a sense, objectively observing a human would not be possible or accurate, yet another reason why subjectivity would be better in this case.

If humans are as complex as we give ourselves credit to be than we should not try to objectively simplify human nature and behavior. Subjectivity can actually provide a more accurate view for human scientists, such as anthropologists, than an objective approach would be able to determine. Also, how exactly would we objectively quantify human behavior? Is it possible to categorize humans easily? Not at all. And finally, humans are not a constant variable. Their reactions to their surroundings can depend on anything from their moods to the way others are dressed.  Humans and human sciences are more complex than an entirely objective view could ever explain, that is why using subjectivity to study them is still very necessary.

Do we and should we study human behavior objectively? 

The key word in this question is objectivity. It is asking if we study human behavior without bias, without opinion, without assumptions, etc. But, a more answerable question, and a good place to start, would be “do we strive to study human behavior objectively?” The answer is, for the most part, yes. We have witnessed, as human beings, the objectivity of the natural sciences and their precision. This precision has allowed for tremendous technological advancements. Thus, it seems we, as humans, are seeking to apply this objectivity to other sciences (the human sciences). There might be some disagreement with this statement. There are surely a good amount of human scientists that are not working towards objectivity. But, for those who are, will objectifying these sciences work the same as it has for the natural sciences? Is it even possible to wholly objectify the human sciences? To what extent is it already objectified? These last questions much more interesting to tackle.

In psychology the MRI has allowed tremendous advancement in that field and has also objectified it further. Out of the human sciences psychology’s mainstream research may very well be the most objective.The MRI technology helps researches in this field map out active portions of the brain in response to stimuli, thus collecting objective data. But is it purely objective? The answer is no. Besides the overwhelming challenge of diminishing the number of independent variables, psychologists often have to, on some level, interpret the results in order for them to be of any use in society (how is knowing that one part of the brain lights up over another in an MRI going to advance human knowledge in any major way and be applicable to solve human problems). Such interpretations can be extremely subjective as depending on the researcher’s or interpreter’s perception (beliefs, upbringing, cultural background, institution he or she works for, personal goals, etc.) their conclusion can vary widely. Nevertheless, the MRI is allowing psychology to come closer to the standard that the natural sciences have set. Psychology may soon be considered an exact science. But what does this really mean? Well, while objectivity is something these sciences (natural sciences) achieve to a larger extend than other studies, every once in awhile subjectivity slips through, and this happens mostly when qualitative data must be collected by humans. While describing the movement of an animal one naturalist or biologist might use different words and come to different conclusions about the motives behind said animal’s actions depending on their past experiences, who they are, how they were brought up, their emotional state at the time. It all comes down to perception.

So, is it even possible to study the human sciences objectively? It seems like qualitative data is near impossible to avoid in these studies, but there is some objectivity. For example, human sciences (e.g., literature, philosophy, archeology, economy) deploy a range of methods which vary in the “subjectivity to objectivity” spectrum. These may be interviews, mathematical modeling, carbon dating, questionnaires, narrative analysis, and conceptual analysis. Some of these allow for collecting objective data. In archeology, for example, carbon data aids in the study of artifacts found in the ground. This data allows for statistical analysis. Similarly, in economy mathematical models are often used, the problem is, depending on the researcher’s biases, the model can be set up differently. An economist may have as a goal to understand the impact that a 1% price increase in raw wool produced in Argentina, may have in Italian households. Literature may be an example of the difficulties of being objective. In literature may employ linguistic or narrative analysis, which is not quantitative friendly. Philosophy may be at the end of the spectrum, as it is impossible to track rationality. For this reason, conceptual analysis is used. In other words, all of the above examples demonstrate that researchers modify their methods according to what they believe suits best what they are trying to study. This is to say that sometimes objectivity is not viable, and in these cases we should not strive for objectivity. Opinions are often an important part of growth in any area of knowledge. In conclusion, research in the human sciences (and in other fields) should be dealt with as a TOK essay, with the argument built over premises that are stated as clearly as the common language of the discipline allows for (since each discipline has its own predefined terms). Both objective knowledge and interpretation (however, bias it may be) of that knowledge are important in any field.

Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?

Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?

         Objectivity is the state of something being considered true. Objectivity lacks any sort of bias or outside influence, independent of individual feelings and interpretations. Human behavior, on the other hand, is largely composed of subjectivity and the unconscious influence of past experience. Basically, can an objective science like biology, with concrete answers, accurately study the minds of subjective people? Is it even possible to measure the unpredictable conscious mind?

         So to formulate an answer we must analyze whether we DO study human behavior objectively. Unfortunately--in this context--human beings are largely emotional individuals. We tend to use our emotions to guide our decisions, whether it is unconsciously or if we feel that the other options are against our beliefs. Throughout life we have a generally limited perspective of the outside, and we end up fueling our decisions with previously known ideas or values. We fail, therefore, to see the actions and behaviors objectively. This is what they call confirmation bias, where we use predetermined notions to conclude something that may or may not be logically true. It is our intuition to use our own schemas to observe something, which is different from everyone else's. The mind is unpredictable in the sense that what we observe may not be what is ACTUALLY happening. However, will we ever know what is actually happening? This relates back to our reason unit--how much of a role does perception play in limiting us from knowing true knowledge?

         The alien activity done in class was certainly an example of how challenging it is to avoid the influence of emotion. By taking a participant role (role of the observed) when looking at human behavior, I found myself unconsciously associating what I observed with my own conventions. It was hard to read supposedly 'extraterrestrial' body language when I already knew what they meant, for example. I could not find myself observing those around me objectively, nor making predictions without thinking of my own experiences and being biased. In separate cases, I tried to use the scientific method and found myself with further limitations. By trying to make an unaffected prediction, without any influence from my life, I ended up unconsciously using my logical thinking. I saw those humans around me (my friends) as people that I trusted, because that would be logical, given how much we stayed together--that is not what an alien would believe when first seeing them. Furthermore, some things I heard were being held in greater weights than other things, such as the "search of death" idea in my observations. They changed the general view completely and resulted in rather incorrect thoughts (that humans try to die everyday). This often happens with anthropologists who try to study unknown behavior and end up believing one minor thing is key in that culture.

         Furthermore, the Hawthorne effect is a big contributor to the weaknesses of studying humanity. The idea suggests that when the observed knows they are being observed, their behavior changes because they feel that they should try to meet the observer's "goal", or expected results. Human beings have free will and are self-conscious of their actions, causing observation to be subjective. How does the observer know that they are observing the actual behaviors of individuals, or if they are studying a shift in behavior due to a changing environment? It relates to the Stanford Prison Experiment as seen in class. The individuals representing guards turned towards abuse and dominance in just a few days, while the prisoners began to show signs of depression and anxiety. One of Zimbardo's conclusions was how strongly situation can play a role in human behavior. It showed how our surrounding has an effect on our behaviors, like knowing that you are taking part in a serious mind study. This makes it harder to make conclusions on human behavior when there are so many different cultures and country situations.

         Some may argue that there might be ways to avoid these experimental limitations in social sciences. Analyzing human activities using quantitative data is one way, such as through inventories, electro-chemical tests or mathematical calculations. By finding outcomes this way, there is a shift from what is predicted because there could be repeating patterns in brain activity of different people (everyone feels sad looking at something, for example). As in natural sciences, the search for trends in an experiment is essential to coming up with a result, such as in the scientific method. When a scientist finds the same pattern over and over, there is evidence that the particular trend is the result. However, psychologists and anthropologists cannot be certain that humans act the same way all the time, because observation is an issue. Finally, this relates back to the second question--should we study human behavior objectively? Well, there are so many limitations associated with it that trying to eliminate them all for an objective view would end up causing other issues. Take the nature vs nurture debate--there are possible explanations to both sides of it, but it is almost impossible to conclude it with the current theories. We change all the time, and we are all very distinct. We all make knowledge claims according to our values and personal beliefs. Therefore, why try to establish a concrete theory to explain our actions if there is an infinite number of distinct behaviors out there?

“People need to believe that order can be glimpsed in the chaos of events"?

            The question at hand is a very difficult one to answer, as it proposes a relationship between human desire and a field of study, the human sciences. It is also problematic in its vagueness; what exactly is the “order” or the “chaos” that Gray talks about? When he mentions the “chaos of events,” he refers not to a traditional form of chaos, but, rather, the uninterrupted and unpredictable course of human history. The “order” that has to be glimpsed from it is a way to be able to understand why the things happen the way they do and why they happen at all. Finally, the question proposes an intriguing knowledge issue: what makes something relevant and can relevancy mean different things? In this blog post, I will try to evaluate the prompt with this in mind.

            Fields within the human sciences such as psychology seem to provide the quick and easy response: people’s need to find order in the chaos of events is extremely relevant in the human sciences. The Gestalt theory of visual perception, familiar to all (or most) psychologists, provides perhaps the most appropriate analogy to demonstrate this. When black spots are displayed on a white screen in such a way that they suggest a shape, say a triangle, we will be able to see that triangle although its not really there. This suggests that the brain has self-organizing tendencies, trying to find patterns, or order, in the middle of a mess, chaos. Although this is limited to perception, it can also be seen in other ways of knowing. In 1961, a Nazi war criminal, Adolf Eichmann, was on trial and this triggered people’s emotions, making them ask the question, “could it be that Eichmann, and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” The holocaust was a majorly unpredictable event and yet people were trying to understand why and how it could have ever happened. When Stanley Milgram set out to answer this question with the aptly named Milgram experiment, he proposed in the possibility that there could be some explanation why such an atrocity could happen. In other words, he was suggesting that order could be glimpsed from absolute chaos. This claim becomes relevant in this case for the human sciences because it served as an impetus for psychological research.

In some cases, the person that wants to find order is not the observer, but the observed. This is seen directly in what is known as the Hawthorne effect—people have a tendency to modify their behavior when they know they are being studied in order to produce the result they believe the observer wants to see. In such a case, it is evident that people need to make sense of the situation they have been placed in. They don’t know what is being tested (they actually have no idea what is actually going on) and thus, try to find order in a chaotic situation. This occurred with the Stanford Prison Experiment’s “John Wayne,” who claimed that he acted more violently because that is what he thought was expected of him. Whether or not this claim is true as inconsequential, as it still evidences someone trying to understand why he behaved in a certain way. Even decades after the experiment, he was trying to find order in the chaos of the experiment. This demonstrates a relevancy of the idea that people need to understand why the unpredictable happens in the human sciences because it can be seen anyone, and is thus of value for many a psychologist.

All that said, there is evidence to suggest that the claim is not relevant in the human sciences. When Milgram published his findings, people were shocked: how could it be that 65 percent of people were willing to administer a lethal shock to a complete stranger? This data could suggest reasons for why the atrocities in the holocaust were allowed to happen, but the population was averse to the findings. This suggests that humans are not actually looking to find order or to understand why some things happened; rather, they want to confirm their own suspicions and feelings. They wanted to show that “normal people” are not the same as a Nazi war criminal and once the data suggested otherwise, they reacted negatively with much emotion. What this shows is the opposite of Gray’s claims, people want to find what they expect, not order from the chaos events. This is similar to another idea, that of confirmation bias, a tendency of social scientists to cherry pick information or interpret it in such a way that aids their beliefs and hypotheses. Many times, researchers will go into a study with supposed full knowledge of what their end result will be and will only look at results that support this. This, again, suggests that instead of trying to find order, we are simply trying to satiate ourselves and our beliefs. This excludes the claim from relevancy in the human sciences, for the pre-disposed biases and emotions overrule the need for order. The field of anthropology can also be seen as a counter claim. When an anthropologist places himself in a different culture for an ethnographic study, he undergoes what is known as reflexivity. in anthropological research; observer and observed

When conducting the alien anthropological ethography, I felt that the only thing I wanted to do when using my “objective lens” was to make sense of everything the humans do. With an objective perspective on all that occurred around me, every event, like Gray said, seemed like chaos, and I just wanted to find order in that mess. As a pretend anthropologist in that case, I realized the extreme relevancy of the idea that order must be found from the chaos of events, which, in turn created a personal knowledge issue—am I able to objectively discuss this topic even if I had an experience that leaned strongly towards one side? Yes; by analyzing both sides, as I did, I can eliminate my bias, and as such am ready to evaluate the claim. It appears that something is relevant to a particular area of study if it will affect it significantly. In this case, it appears that a “need to believe that order can be glimpsed in the chaos of events” is, to a great extent, relevant in the human sciences, for, even if there are cases when human sciences do not deal with this need, the fact that there are many cases that only came to be as a result of this need displays a great relevance of it to the human sciences.

            

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).

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