You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Skip to content To answer this question we can take into account some areas of knowledge such as human and natural sciences.
Share this: Twitter Facebook. Like this: Like Loading Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here People from certain regions or jobs or backgrounds? Look for similarities and differences. I don't know if it's dangerous to talk about this, but to me the question is not-so-subtly hinting at the non-sciences and their theories.
I feel like a part of this title is asking how these science-y theories can be more convincing than the artsy theories. That's one way answer the question, but I don't know if you have to look into that at all. Anyways, now answer the question. Why were certain theories convincing? Look at theories that we have discredited today in addition to theories that we still hold.
You might say, "Experiments! Repeatable, precise experiments in this natural science makes these theories convincing.
I know that I wouldn't have any experience with social sciences other than history and a little bit of economics with my courses in IB. Pick one you're most comfortable with but ask about others if you want to branch out. At every step be sure to connect your argument with examples from your life.
This is just one way to approach the question. In figuring out how you want to dissect the title and bring it back together, you can come up with different angles because the question is pretty open-ended. I'm done with TOK, but my friend just recently asked me to help her out. I would like to add that, if during this essay you have not covered the scientific method, you are in danger of having gone rather wrong. The important bit isn't so much analysing theories themselves -- the language, structure, presentation etc.
I suggest looking at the ways of knowing involved in the scientific method for natural sciences and the reasons why we find these to be reliable. Then look at ways of knowing involved in human sciences and look at how the scientific method differs. Is the scientific method exactly the same?
Is the nature of the data the same? Personally I would say that the scientific method unites both sciences and that you need to address the reasons why we find the scientific method reliable: what is it about it as in the process that makes it convincing?
Then perhaps discuss how the scientific method is applied to different forms of knowledge in human from natural sciences which might make a theory a little less convincing Just giving this a bump, im stuck for ideas, brainstorming atm, anyone got anything else to think about thats related?
I'd like to add that you would do better to define what a 'scientific method' is. Bear in mind that the traditional idea of observation, induction towards hypothesis, experiment towards confirmation or disproof, etc is a central idea, but not what every scientist uses. Rather, these are components of a scientific method which may be deployed, with some modifications, towards the ideals of firstly achieving validity and reliability, and then utility or facility.
The point about human sciences like economics and psychology 'science-y things found in Group 3' is that they too attempt to employ the scientific method. But their inherent difficulty is the non-reproducibility of human behaviour which has to be overcome by statistical methods. A 'hard science' theory can often be examined with just one case; a 'human science' theory has to be checked to see if it's generally true for most humans.
This happens in some areas of plant and animal biology too, except that it might be considered unethical to do things to humans that we might do to a tapeworm or a plant. What of these theories? The role of authority and the way a theory is presented in determining the convincing nature of theories, not just in the human sciences but also the natural sciences, must be considered.
While we would like to believe that we are completely rational in our thinking and our evaluation of knowledge, the fact is that most normal individuals do not possess the sufficient background knowledge required to make such evaluations. While we may fool ourselves into thinking that we are convinced purely on a rational basis, in reality, we are simply putting our faith in the members of the scientific field to make these evaluations for us.
The effect increased when said findings were released with pictures of the brain. This suggest that at times, we are convinced by theories in he human and natural sciences because we place faith in authority figures in these areas to make the correct conclusions, and not because of any sort of evaluation on the part of the average individual.
The convincing nature of theories in the natural sciences and the human sciences can be explained through several methods. It would be unfair to dismiss the influence of the rational nature of these theories in their ability to convince us- the predictability and consistency of results in certain theories showcase the strengths of the scientific method in the development of theories.
But to the average knower who is unrelated to the fields of science, this belief in the scientific method is undoubtedly tied to our tendency to think that we understand more about these theories than we actually do, when in fact, we are simply placing our trust in scientific figures to tell us what is convincing or not. The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, — Posted in Uncategorized 1 Comment.
The argument flows naturally, and leads into your well-crafted conclusion. Your analysis could run a little deeper by looking at more complex examples, but your basic ideas are well supported. Comments RSS. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. They are fallible and are subjected to change. So what is it in the theories of the human and natural sciences that makes them so convincing?
Why do people have such high regard for them to the extent that some have begun to take them for granted as being true? This essay will attempt to discuss theories in the natural sciences followed by theories in the human sciences. To begin, it is important to define the key terms, namely 'scientific theories' and 'convincing'. In chemistry, mathematics is needed to calculate the concentrations of solutions in moles. Even in ancient Greek, "many sophisticated understandings of our Solar System were based on the Greeks' strong grasp of geometry".
Although not necessarily true, it is believed to provide absolute truth and since it is the basis of scientific theories, people tend to be convinced by them. For example, the scientific community did not accept Michael Faraday's electromagnetic field theory because no mathematical terms were able to provide any convincing explanation at that time.
James Maxwell later provided the necessary mathematical equations to justify Faraday's theory, which was then accepted Lau. Thus, theories in the natural sciences are convincing because mathematics is the foundation of it. While theories in natural sciences are convincing due to the nature of the scientific method and procedure, theories in human sciences are much more complex.
The human sciences are the study of the human behavior. Though both the natural and human sciences require the same methodology, i. As a result, the selling prices for new cars will increase significantly, making them more expensive to potential buyers todayonline.
Consumer reaction is to seek cheaper alternatives, i. In this example, buyers used past COE supply and price trends to anticipate prices of new cars and have responded as predicted by the market theory by seeking cheaper alternatives in the used car market. Although the above point generally applies to other areas of knowledge AoKs such as ethics, art and religion, the key characteristic that separates scientific theories from theories in other AoKs is the process of rigorous proofing and falsification, thus arriving at fairly coherent results.
No other AoK shares this unique feature: history cannot be proven; mathematical axioms cannot be proven invalid. Due to this characteristic, scientific theories have that persuasive ability.
0コメント