TOK Essay on Natural versus Social Sciences
Natural versus Social Sciences: "An Eye to Designing the Future?" or Concentration on Present Forms?
Although the term ‘body of knowledge’ is widely used to describe the cumulative body of all knowledge known by all mankind, this phrase demonstrates a hasty generalization. In fact, this statement is misleading, if not completely erroneous. There are, in essence, two distinct types of knowing with two opposite focuses. The first way of knowing, experimental science, concerns itself with how various objects and phenomenon ‘are’ in their present forms. Social science, however, engages itself in a process where one attempts to discern how things should ‘be’. These two types of knowledge feed from one another’s methods, however they remain two distinct areas of knowing with two distinct focuses.
The experimental (or natural) sciences involve Bertrand Russell’s concept of knowledge by acquisition. This knowledge is acquired through direct observation of phenomenon, such as the scientist utilizing controlled experiments in order to support their basic assumptions. This process is that of induction, where the scientists use results accumulated throughout various applications of their experiment to draw buttressed conclusions. The inductive method creates a type of knowledge concerned with the observable forms of its subjects. Conclusions drawn from observation then provide the scientist with the information to attempt to create axioms which can be correctly applied to the natural world. The study of the physical realm does not concentrate on the Platonian ‘ideal form’ of an object or of the phenomenon; rather it concentrates on what it has been and how it has evolved into its present form.
It is irrational to say that the natural scientist is concerned with changing his subjects. A chemist is only interested in discovering how his compounds work and their composition, not improving their existence. Natural scientists are only interested in how the natural world operates and how its applications can possibly benefit human society. Although veterinarians and biologists are sometimes interested in improving the lot of animals, these scientists are guilty of anthropomorphism, where as Jeffrey Masson states "not only are the emotions of animals not a respectable field of study, the words associated with emotions are not supposed to be applied to them." Anthropomorphism, or the projection of human emotion and qualities onto animals, is considered scientific blasphemy, since these emotions cannot be proven by induction. The anthropomorphization of animals therefore is an extension of the social sciences, attributing the imperfection of...