Methods in HSs

Are the findings of the natural sciences as reliable as those of the human sciences? 

Natural science is any of the sciences (such as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformation or with objectively measurable phenomena.

As of the human sciences, it comprises of human and social sciences but also includes aspects of psychology and even mathematics such as human biology, economy and sociology.

To justify, human science is more about the behavior, and is more abstract. Compared to natural sciences, this involves more thought and emotion.  Unlike natural science, there is no correct answer, so it is difficult to do an experiment.  However, conclusions can be drawn out from testing a large number of people and looking at what the majority has shown.

Finding information of the natural science is as reliable as those of the human sciences because it is not the subject that matters but rather the amount of evidence, observation and awareness of variables that a scientist expresses regardless of the subject. 

An example to the natural science is Darwins theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) where he believes that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to complete, survive, and reproduce. To justify, Darwin observed and collected a variety of evidence in order to prove his theory correct thus, allowing natural science to be as reliable as human sciences.

Role of Language in History

Language plays a vital role in history as what is being communicated is driven by the purpose of manipulating inaccurate historical information for a countries or individual's own prosperous gain. This establishes one sided perspectives of valuable notions like religion that could lead to cultural divisions. As evident in the article written by David M Perry in February 2015 titled 'Conservatives want to rewrite the history of the Crusades for modern political ends', Barack Obama expresses how America as a nation needs humility and must recognise their "fallibility" by studying the past in order to understand why "things, happen and the we must try to do better- and not just the one written by the "victors". To justify, Obama believes that "violence in the name of religion is a global problem and is bad". Although this ideology may not seem controversial, such directive statement surely did spark controversy between conservative Christian believers that perceive it as an "attack on Christianity" as they argue that the Crusaders were in fact justifiable actions against Muslim unlike Obama whom perceives it as a "mistake to believe in Christian exceptionalism". Undoubtedly, the role of language in history portrays how they come to play to reinforce ignorant and bias perspectives in order embrace hegemonic power.

The way that language of certain historical events are presented in history text books predominately influences the way that the reader understands those events. For example, the history of Crusades and the deadly killing of non-Christian civilian population would probably be taught differently in Crusade than other countries. This is because the manipulation of language causes historical events either to be incomplete or even biased. Furthermore, this would lead to controversy/lack of accuracy in historical factual information. There is not doubt that language hinders the interpretation of historical events that actually occurred by denying historical information through the use of an assertive tone that creates an influential mood. Not to forget that language is the key to conserving the destructive effects of certain historical events. Although

I've reflecting on the contextual significance of a languages role in history and concluded my thoughts with the following knowledge questions:

1- To what extent can we trust historical knowledge based on emotional bias?

2- To what extent does the manipulation of historical events stimulate phenomalism?

3- To what extent does confirmation bias influence the way we perceive history?

4- To what extent does emotive meaning provoke the need to alter history?

5- How can language develop uncertainty coherence in history?

Language of Science

Language efficaciously plays a vital role in the scientific field of life. Scientists need to be able to communicate with one another in order to produce observations, explanations and make predictions of real world phenomenas. This allows language to be fundamental in terms of science because it is a branch that is driven by the focus of our knowledge constantly developing. Ultimately, this is accomplished through the use of trial and error, new theoretical perceptions and experiments that stimulates new ideas. There is no doubt that this critically enlighten ones thoughts and perceptions of the scientific world around us. 

The role of language in science is an ongoing discussion as some writers seem to debate about the significant use of linguistic metaphors in scientific context. As evident in the article published by the Scientific America that implies how metaphors does not always work for everyone. The article expresses how scientists themselves may lack common sense or even humour to understand specific metaphors. This leads to there point that the human language is imperfect and so is the human brain thus, we can see things the way we want and miss the things we shouldn't. Whereas the article published by Phillip Ball expresses how metaphor is widely considered an essential tool for understanding. This is because the pathetic fallacy is an ingrained and profoundly influential habit, especially in biology, where animations of intelligent agency seem irresistible even to those who deplore them. As evident when he states how it is able: "Capture the practical mechanics of the science poetically, to sneak up quietly on the vital heart of the subject through non-metaphorical innuendo and implication would, to put it bluntly, take a time exceeding most normal human lifespans." Clearly this outlook on metaphors is a juxtaposition compared to the first article as it contrasts with Article #1 perspective that articulates how metaphors lack the depth of communication of which leads one to vaguely recognise the scientific significance. Whereas Article 2 believes that it does not have a "misleading mentality" but rather are "heavy implements that get the job done". 

Coined by Alfred Korzybski, he believes that our view of the world is being generated by our brain and can be expressed as a 'map' of reality illustrated in neural patterns. To justify, reality exists outside our mind however; we can manifest models of this 'territory' based on what we perceive through our senses. The contrasting perspectives of metaphors in the scientific world relates to Alfred Korzybski's assertion that "the map is not the territory" as it displays the contrasting differences between belief and reality. This is similar to the way we recognise metaphors and how they diverge from its true definition. Thus, our understanding on a scientific contextual concept has a possibility of being altered. In my opinion we must seek vigilant consideration of how we use language in science as it may nourish a variety of perspectives that would allows us to construct a better outlook of life in the the scientific world.

Essay Prompts based on the Natural Sciences

Prompt 1: Facts are needed to establish theories but theories are needed to make sense of  facts.”

The first prom effectiously connotes the sense that facts naturally are required in order to form a realiable theory whereas, a theory is needed to clearly articulate the certainty of a fact. Such counter exchanging matter expresses the significance of developing a well-reliable theory. This is because, the only difference between a reliable and an unreliable theory is that a reliable theory has backed up facts for support that stimulates ones logic. This proves how important factual data and statistics are in terms of theories since it similar to a protecting shield due to its use of credibility. Clearly this portrays how thoughts without content is empty. On the other hand,  intuition without any concepts are blind since, it is as necessary to make use of concepts/theories in order to make sense of facts. Appreciating the importance of theories and facts allows us to easily comprhend how one another are needed in order for their unity to harmonise thus, stimulating the rise of knowledge and proficiency. 

As evident below, this prompt can be approached in a multitude of appropriate manners with reference to the Natural and Human Sciences:

AOW #1- Natural Science:

1- Scientists have gathered a lot of evidence and information about the Universe. They have used their observations to develop a theory called the Big Bang. The theory states that about 13.7 billion years ago all the matter in the Universe was concentrated into a single incredibly tiny point. This began to enlarge rapidly in a hot explosion, and it is still expanding today.

Evidence for the Big Bang includes

- All the galaxies are moving away from us.

- The further away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away.

The above facts found by NASA prove my valid point as to how theories similar to the Big Bang theory are needed to make sense of facts of which is what NASA has successfully proven the Big Bang theory.

AOW #2- Human Science:

2- Scientists like the German Biologist Matthais Shlieden established what is known as the cell theory today. This includes the theoretical concept of how:

- Cells are the basic units of structure and function in living things.
- Living cells come only from other living cells.
However, the above theory mentioned stimulated from the fact that all living things are made out of cells. This proves my valid point as it portrays how theories similar to the cell Theory were only developed because of the fact that all living things are made out of cells.

Prompt 2: Given access to the same facts, how is it possible that there can be disagreement between experts in a discipline? Develop your answer concerning two areas of knowledge.

The second prompt effectively allows one to critically comprehend the fact that although the same information is provided to certain people, there is a possibility that this would rise disagreement and contrasting ideas that are debatable between one another. This is the case because everyone is brought up differently in terms of culture, morals/values, religious beliefs and education that plays a major role in shaping an individuals identity. To justify, this does not have to be solely ones master identity but rather the self conciuious and formation of ones identity in terms of personal-exepreinces develops an individuals awareness of his/her thoughts, motivation and intuition. This influences there decision making as the conscious/unconscious mind of an individual would express there perspectives as a by-product of their own identity.


As evident below, this prompt can be approached in a multitude of appropriate manners with reference to the Natural Sciences:

1-- The controversy between whether or not Animal Testing Is Necessary:

- While 93% of scientists were in favour of animal research, merely 52% of the public agrees. This is a "necessary evil" that is not considered controversial in the scientific community.

-- This proves how the taboos including how values play an important role in shaping ones identity since some people value animals greatly and would not want to dare harm them.

2- The controversy between whether or not vaccine cause a higher chances of autism to occur: 

-  In 1998, researcher Andrew Wakefield published a small study in the respected medical journal The Lancet, reporting that eight of twelve children who had received the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine had begun to experience behavioural symptoms of autism. Although recent studies proved this was not the case, some scientists still believe the fact that it does cause a possibility Autism to occur.

- This proves how the personal experience plays an important tore in shaping ones identity since some people would actually witness this and would agree/not agree similarly to the researcher.

Theory VS. Law in the natural sciences

                                                                          The Theory of Evolution:

The theory of evolution in natural selection was first proposed in the early 19th century by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) where he fully formed a theory that comprises of ideas that living creatures are not passively modified by their environment. Instead, a change in the environment creates adjustments depending on the needs of the organisms of which leads to a change in their behaviour, driving the Lamarkian evolution. 

A development that this theory has gone through includes the fact that Lamarck's mechanism for evolution was modified by Charles Darwin (1809-1882) theory of evolution since, Lamarck's ideologies has been contributed in his Darwin's first book dealing with natural selection. To justify, Lamark's theory has been adjusted into focusing on the inheritance of acquired traits where traits changed or acquired over a persons lifetime could be passed down to its offspring. This is different compared to Lamarck's first theory where the environment creates changes depending on the needs of the organisms. 

A challenge that scientists has faced is to explore fully justified evidence of Lamarck theory that this occurred through use and disuse. If an animal usually used a specific trait/characteristics, that trust would become larger or more pronounced. If that trait went unused, it would no longer develop fully and would become reduced.

Some method of questioning were developed that reached new conclusions like how the inheritance of acquired traits has been disproved by advances made in the past century in the field of genetics. Thus reaching to genetical discoveries such as mobile DNA, transposons, symbiosis, horizontal gene transfer, regulatory elements, gene duplication and chromosome rearrangements. These new discoveries have changed the theory of evolution since it integrates Darwin's ideologies with major breakthroughs in biology over the past 50 years.

There is no doubt that a theory comprises of thorough logical explanations of why certain aspects are the way they are similarly to Lamark's theory that focuses on the inheritance of acquired traits where traits changed or acquired over a persons lifetime could be passed down to its offspring. In contrast, a scientific law is predicting the outcomes of certain initial aspects similarity to predicting how far a baseball travels when launched at a certain angle through the use of a specific law in psychics. To justify, a law is the speculation of what happens whereas a theory like the theory of evolution, proposes reason/ answers why it is the way it is. Further more, a theory does not grow into a law however; the evolvement of one usually triggers development on the other. In the 17th century, Johannes Kepler theorised cosmetic musical harmonies to explain the nature of orbits, he developed three brilliant laws of planetarium motions while he was studying the motion of orbits in an effort to support his theory. While his laws were appreciated in the scientific field, gravity replaced his theory of harmonics to explain planets motions. This proves my point that laws resist change as we revise them to suit our needs and development of knowledge. A theories acceptance however is competitive between scientists since the most successful theory is usually the one with the most explanation to it. As evident, the Periodic table was largely accepted due to its discovery of new elements. 

There is no doubt that the term "scientific theory" is misused since it does not explain whether or not the theory has little or a lot of evidence,  the theory of evolution for example has endorsed years of experimental conformation before gaining acceptance by the scientific community. Clearly the vulnerability does not weaken a theory but rather strengthens it by proposing thorough reasoning that may lead to possible laws and discoveries. I believe that both laws and theories play a vital role in shaping the way we perceive aspects in the natural sciences because of the way it allows one to jump to conclusions that may lead to successful future discoveries. 

Knowledge claims for emotions

1- Emotions and feelings are parallel forces causing them to have a rational basis

2-There is no correct or appropriate emotional response rather an expected response

3- Emotion is linked to our physiological feelings causing it to be a vital role in our creative minds and thoughts.

Do words have meaning?

Do we need to know a definition of a word, in order to understand its meaning?

I believe that we do not need to know a definition of a word in order to understand its meaning because as humans, we experience moments that allows us to value words differently.

For example,

A name is just a name however if it a name of a enemy or someone that you do not like, hearing that name makes you anxious therefore you from your experience gave it a meaning. On the other hand, if your love is called by that name, you feel like calm and love.

Do words have meanings or do we give them meanings?

Words have no deeper meaning, unless of course you are a human. In that case words can have profound effects on the way people live their lives. This means that we as humans give meanings to the words. They do not have meaning if we do not give them one. So  the combination of alphabets and letters have no meaning other than the meaning you give it through specific definitions. 

 Words are not sentient, animals are, nature is, these are things with deeper meaning. When one is not conscious living things have meaning words do not.