The Human Sciences in TOK
This is an outline of a presentation that I recently gave to a group of students at the Mahindra United World College of India as part of the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program’s Theory of Knowledge course, which investigates various ‘Areas of Knowledge’ and ‘Ways of Knowing’. The Human (or Social) Sciences provide a great synthesis of many other areas of knowledge as I’ve discussed before, and because secondary school students are taking only their first few steps into the related fields, it is critical that they understand the relationship with the natural sciences and the humanities.
The Human/Social Sciences
What are we referring to? Somewhere between “Science” and “Humanities”, with a few distinguishing features, some of which are outlined below.
1. Interdisciplinary
If compared with other fields of science, the human sciences fit in as the most interdisciplinary – building up from the natural sciences and adding its own particular input like so:
Physics > Chemistry > Biology > Psychology, Economics, Political Science, Sociology
The question then arises: is it valid to compare the social sciences directly to the natural sciences? The above array looks like the children’s game of “Which one doesn’t belong?”. In part, this is due to the prevalence of qualitative data in social science, although the above progression also depicts the progressive increase in the amount of qualitative data used to define theories in each field. In the human sciences, theories must connect quantitative and qualitative information in a meaningful, rigorous way for anyone to pay attention. If no one pays attention, the theory fails.
2. Modeling behavior
Similar to any natural science, the human sciences propose and debate models of behavior – with the distinction that there are far more recognized variables, each with far more variation than in any natural science. Therefore, models that attempt to simplify this complexity naturally rely on statistical probability rather than absolute predictions – exceptions to a proposed model do not invalidate it, but simply show that unaccounted forces are also at work - the possibility proof.
Many social science theories also tend to place emphasis on emergent rather than reductionist properties of behavior – they are more interested in what happens when you put many pieces together rather than trying to explain behaviors only in terms of their component parts.
3. The “so what?” test
Because the human sciences connect more explicity with everyday human behavior, it is sometimes easier to recognize how to apply even the most cutting-edge research (unlike many natural sciences and pure humanities, which often come across as abstract or obscure), and this goal is built into the research community – when something is modeled, it should clearly answer the question “so what?”. Technology becomes useful by applying the human sciences.
Theory of Knowledge questions:
- Is it valid to use the scientific method to study human behavior? What modifications should be made? Since it is impossible to control every variable, is it valid to experiment in the human sciences?
- What about free will? How does the possibility of free will affect our ability to study humans
- What criteria should be applied when evaluating theories in the human sciences (utility, predictive power, most general, most specific)? Is the “so what?” test important?
- How are these criteria different from those in other areas of knowledge?
- How is the concept of “proof” different in the human sciences compared with the natural sciences?
- How does this affect our claims to be correct (to “know”)?
- How does the balance between emotion and reason differ between the natural sciences, human sciences, and humanities?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.