Mr Alex

To what extent are human sciences, real sciences?

“Human science fragments everything in order to understand it, kills everything in order to examine it. ” (Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace)i

There has always existed the question whether human sciences are considered real sciences and if do they really follow the established guidelines of science. The argument is that the natural sciences take a different approach to results and have a strong dependence on the observer. This is due to the fact, that in some cases human sciences have to take into account concepts, which are hard to measure like happiness or love. Likewise, the background knowledge and empathy of the observer affect the results of the experiment. When talking about human sciences is important to highlight that they don’t prove a theory, as there is no 100% certainty in any of the experiments. They only add information to the understanding of a topic or concept. To further develop my argument that states that Human sciences are scientific, the Bobo Doll Experiment will be analysed to develop this claim.

The Bobo Doll Experiment was presented by Albert Bandura to help prove his belief that all human behaviour was learned through copying and imitating, rather than through genetic factors. This experiment is still controversial to this day, as many debaters state that todays globalize society that promotes violence. Therefore children are more prone to violent behaviour than in other generations.

Dr. Albert Bandura used children on his experiment, as they have less knowledge on rules of society and less prone on behaving as the society think is right. He had four hypotheses; the first one was that children witnessing aggressive behaviour by adults would replicate their actions even if adults were not nearby. The second one states that children who have observed non-aggressive behaviour are less likely to be violent. Even less than the control group, who have not even seen an adult. (Role Model) The third one proposes that children are more susceptible to copy the actions of an adult of the same-sex. The last one suggested that male children would be more aggressive than the opposite sex. ii

The Experiment had a simple and clearly stated Dependent Variable and Independent Variable. Also it had a Control Group used as comparison with the other two groups, the one with aggressive and peaceful adults. Moreover the experiment can be repeated to add up and compare the information; this is a scientific quality that complies with the scientific theory. Another important aspect to take into account is that each of the subjects was tested individually to avoid other individuals affecting the reactions of the subject. iii On the other hand, the experiment had some clear flaws. For example it generalizes the results as just a few children were part of the experiment, so the sample is very narrow and specific.

In my opinion Human Sciences should be considered the same as Natural sciences, they should be viewed as equal. But the perspective we have of them is very different the one from the other. Natural sciences are viewed as the more “professional” one as being scientists is harder and requires a lot of hard work; also they are the ones who wear the white lab coats. On the other hand the Human sciences are viewed as more vague with few scientific bases. However this perspective we have of the sciences need to change, they should be considered sciences as long as they are reliable, follow the scientific method and acknowledge their flaws, these are just a few of the requirements they should follow.

We can conclude that if everything is done correctly Social sciences can be scientific as they can follow certain guidelines. However they have some limitations that must be taken into account, like the flaws of the observer or all the variables that are affecting the experiment. We must remember that in human sciences we are studying ourselves, so we are affected by the knowledge we have, in what society we have grown, and ethical and social guidelines.