The Difference Between Natural and Human Sciences
TOK Essay
Logicians have successfully been able to narrow the realm of sciences, by compartmentalizing it into several categories including natural and human sciences. And by natural science, we mean it’s the disciplines and studies of the “physical world” or the “phenomena of the physical universe” as philosophers call it; where truth is a firm proclamation, and could be justified through experiments and observations. A fine example would be, the rotation of the earth which could be justified using astronomy, physics, and math. On the other hand, human sciences tend to observe human nature and behavior; however we should put into consideration the fact that its truth is a probability which triggers the likelihood of having different points of view, as well as, the existence of ascetics which most probably might defy the norm of the usual behavior. Moreover, these sciences apply the same standards of testability, objectivity and precision of creditability. Nonetheless, natural sciences cannot be as quite as precise and reliable as it is claimed by some scientists that work in this field, the human scientist, like economist. A modest exemplar would be brokers in the stock and exchange market; although they study the trend of the market and the range in which their stocks and share fluctuate increasing their winnings and loses. Conversely, their studies might change, and they might contrast the norm of the market because of some unnatural or unexpected coincidences, such as the inflation which caused the economic crisis that occurred in the USA (2009) which eventually led many businesses to insolvency and bankruptcy. Hence, in this modest essay I will be deliberating to what extent human sciences could be justified like natural sciences using motivation theories in business studies.
Throughout the years many theorists have attempted to explain what motivates workers at business by formulating many conjectures which aims to predict humans’ behavior.
Logicians have successfully been able to narrow the realm of sciences, by compartmentalizing it into several categories including natural and human sciences. And by natural science, we mean it’s the disciplines and studies of the “physical world” or the “phenomena of the physical universe” as philosophers call it; where truth is a firm proclamation, and could be justified through experiments and observations. A fine example would be, the rotation of the earth which could be justified using astronomy, physics, and math. On the other hand, human sciences tend to observe human nature and behavior; however we should put into consideration the fact that its truth is a probability which triggers the likelihood of having different points of view, as well as, the existence of ascetics which most probably might defy the norm of the usual behavior. Moreover, these sciences apply the same standards of testability, objectivity and precision of creditability. Nonetheless, natural sciences cannot be as quite as precise and reliable as it is claimed by some scientists that work in this field, the human scientist, like economist. A modest exemplar would be brokers in the stock and exchange market; although they study the trend of the market and the range in which their stocks and share fluctuate increasing their winnings and loses. Conversely, their studies might change, and they might contrast the norm of the market because of some unnatural or unexpected coincidences, such as the inflation which caused the economic crisis that occurred in the USA (2009) which eventually led many businesses to insolvency and bankruptcy. Hence, in this modest essay I will be deliberating to what extent human sciences could be justified like natural sciences using motivation theories in business studies.
Throughout the years many theorists have attempted to explain what motivates workers at business by formulating many conjectures which aims to predict humans’ behavior.