Amy Gade

IDS 802: Ways of Knowing in Comparative Perspective

Homework #2-Essay on Natural/Social Sciences
For this assignment, you should write an approximately 1200-1500 word essay on
the nature of the distinction between the social and natural sciences. There is
substantial disagreement over whether the natural and social sciences should be
understood as different in kind, or just an application of the same basic methods to
very different questions. Explain the argument for each side of this issue, then
describe your own view. Based on the readings, what do you take to be the main
challenges to success in the social sciences? Are these challenges similar to the
challenges of the natural sciences?

The discussion about natural and social sciences is one that is extremely common in
academia. There are many who believe and would argue that the two are so similar they dont
deserve distinction, while others stand by the argument that there are vast, very notable
differences that necessarily separate the two into individual subject matters. Fay and Moon title
these varying, but common views well in their Chapter titled, What Would an Adequate
Philosophy of Social Science Look Like?, the naturalists view there are no significant
difference between social and natural sciences, while the humanist view claims that the study
of humans and society cannot be researched in a scientific nature like the natural sciences can (p.
21). This essay will discuss the vantage point of both the naturalist and humanist views, as well
as my personal opinion regarding this highly disputed discussion.
Naturalists have determined what they view to be significant enough similarities within
the natural and social sciences to remove any distinction between them. According to our fifth
lecture, Dr. Tim Murphy identified 5 similarities most frequently noted as common to both
natural and social sciences (Lecture 5). The first similarity identified is that these sciences share
the desire to explain world, whether that be the natural or social world. The second similarity,
which helps to separate the sciences from other disciplines, proves that both require observation

in order to study their respective subject matter. The next similarity suggests that the creation and
testing of hypotheses are common in natural and social sciences a like. A fourth commonality
suggests that there is a high level of importance given to transparency, meaning the goal of their
research is to ultimately to learn the truth, not to prove a preferred hypothesis and to stay
objective for the sake of their discipline. This similarity also allows for many checks and
balances to be put in place to ensure the quality of hypotheses being justified. The final cohesion
between the natural and social sciences involves the finite use of models to explain ones
findings. While this model can be exaggerated for learning or aesthetic purposes, so long as it
matches the world in which it hopes to explain in crucial ways, it can be an extremely valid tool
for scientists and those studying science alike.
Humanists would view the above mentioned similarities as a stretch, as they view the
significance of their differences are enough to warrant the separation of subject areas into two
highly different sciences. Dr. Murphy noted four common differences that humanists might note
(Lecture 4). One of the first differences noted is in how research is conducted in these two areas.
Hard sciences typically involve a large percentage of research time in a laboratory setting, while
social sciences involves a higher level of observing subjects on their own turf through fieldwork.
A second difference is attributed to the varying tools and techniques used in each area. While the
hard sciences use what most would view as traditional, physical tools for their research, social
sciences often involves research techniques interviewing, surveying, or even submersion into a
culture to conduct their research. Other notable variations argue that not all sciences intend to
determine law-like generalizations that could enable predictions about behavior or the world
around us to be made. In fact, not all sciences are even interested in working towards knowledge

on what causes everything that happens in the world, like a more traditional take on hard science
might infer.
Previous to the learning offered through this lesson, I wouldnt have necessarily said I
had an opinion about the place of social science in the hard sciences or as a separate entity, as
much as I would have said my experience with the social sciences lead me to see it as associated
in one way. In my work at an institution of higher learning, I have always been somewhat
puzzled as to why we have a School of Natural and Social Science. I should say, Ive never really
understood the fit. As someone who studied Communications in my undergraduate experience, I
often see many similarities between the study of communication and the study of human
behavior or society, yet Communications is most often and was in my personal experience
housed as a humanities program and the study of human behavior or society is more commonly
compared to the study of biology or chemistry. Because sciences are not my strongest suit, I
probably just faulted my misunderstanding to a lack of general understanding or success in
comprehending the sciences overall.
When I think about the faculty in our natural sciences department, I would imagine many
of those would argue that their work and research goals are distinctly different than that of their
counterparts in the social sciences department. While I would like to believe they would argue
that in terms of a humanist view to the subject area, I am not sure that would be their reasoning
alone. Every scientist feels as though their subject matter is the most important or most useful to
those reviewing their research or learning their science. I believe it is this that would motivate
their argument versus a true in-depth look into these proposed differences. On the other hand, I
could easily see the faculty in the social sciences being split in terms of their viewpoint on the

place of their subject matter. I think it is also possible to see portions of a respective social
science subject area as falling more toward one type of science or the other. For example, in the
field of Criminal Justice, most often housed in the social sciences, while identifying the patterns
of criminal behavior can likely be related to the psychology of those individuals, reviewing the
facts surrounding a murder scene might be more related to chemistry if one is looking at the
bullet trajectory and how it caused death.
In discussing the similarities and differences most often noted between the hard sciences
and social sciences above, I believe I have convinced myself that the differences are, in fact,
significant enough to allow for continued, if not further, distinction. While many similarities
noted were valuable in terms of the naturalists view, I think some of those could also be equated
to other subjects of learning as well. I would argue that the subject of communication studies also
relies heavily on observation, hypotheses, and models to create and conduct research, yet it is not
associated with the hard sciences in any ways to my knowledge. On the other hand, it is the
arguments of the opposing types of work, tools and techniques used to conduct research within
the subject areas, as well as the degree to which laws can be identified and how those laws might
predict certain causes or behaviors that distinguish these two types of science as very different in
what they role they play in education, what they desire to prove, and how they should be viewed
in academia.
I believe some of the challenges facing the social sciences relate to their continued
association with the hard sciences. Until the humanist view to the social sciences becomes the
primary viewpoint, social sciences will continue to be looked at as the kid sister and be forced to
fight for their place, argue their worth, and battle for research dollars. Because the hard sciences

have been around longer and are vital in terms of researching things like disease and modern
medicine, I think their place in education, research, and research funding has been proven. I
imagine the challenges being faced by natural and social scientists are as different as their subject
matters.