Introduction
Since the start of the Scientific Revolution, sciences role in society experienced a massive shift from being immensely oppressed to becoming an essential part of today’s culture. Theorists such as Galileo Galilei and many others presented wild ideas and challenged what was said to be true. The definition of truth calls for a proper gauge in order to determine the ingenuity of arguments and counter-arguments. But, how do you define what is true? The church believed in what it saw and built a belief on it, but this supremacy attitude raises the question, why are sciences and scientific theories held with such consideration? How do these two areas of knowledge go through the process of generating a theory and making it true? Is it the way they are constructed, put together using evidence of accurate and consistent data, ultimately generating something that is convincing? How can we rely on these theories if sometimes we won’t even see them with our own eyes?
The question of theory therefore arises. With its general reference of a philosophy that explains a particular phenomenon, its description is diverse (Hahn & Charter, 1998). Others refer to it as a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena. In them is the convincing, persuading or assuring aspect for the argument held.
Natural Sciences
Man’s perception of natural phenomena has been explained from a variety of perceptions. Many scientists and great thinkers have tried to find truth and proposed theories in their endeavors. Perhaps one of the reasons for a widely acclaimed acceptance of natural science is the reliance on proof. Despite this, some people still do not believe in them. Man’s conception of a specific construct is dependent on individual considerations in regard to their own interpretive faculties. Theories about particular phenomenon also lack authenticity. The lack to proof or even a pile of innovations that subjugates the earlier finding to a discontent and unsupported logic, only serves the purpose of illustrating how scientific discovery cannot be solely be believed as the final truth.
The question of how people rely on theories and the trust they put in them is thus based on individual trust and the circumstances laying the foundation of their being convinced. The invention of new ideas and theories that delete the previous ones is a further illustration of how sometimes scientific theories lack authenticity. Scientific methods have been advanced to advocate for the theories proposed by theorists. While some have been found to have a moss to grasp on, others have been watered down by their inconsistencies. This has brought a conflict in the way human beings or man perceives the theories. Wrangles are bound to ensue between Christians or other religious affiliates and scientific theorists. Apparently this group harbors the idea and belief in supernaturalism; contrary to the idea held by scientists.
The scientific method relies on tested principles and consistencies in a particular area. It is used by many in gauging the truth and belief in certain topics or spheres of knowledge. This is the case in mathematics and analytical sciences like Physics and chemistry. We believe because we test and receive concrete and consistent feedback, no matter the time or occasion when the test is taken (Berezina, 2005). For instance, we are able to acknowledge and believe that 1+1=2 because we test a hypothesis which works in a consistent manner .You cannot change this fact. This is scientific method in operation, and most people center their belief on theories depending on their authenticity to fully substantiate their claim(s). A theory like Charles Darwin’s evolution process is thus bound to be entangled in wrangles because its proof is far removed from a consistent analysis. Its proposition that man evolved from a primitive ape in the past into a complex being, (now modern man) through a process of evolution, is a proposition that perhaps has its significance subscribed to by historians but not religious affiliates, who believe in supernaturalism. Scientific methods used in dating fossils and materials to determine their validity, rarely proves the consistencies in this theory. Therefore it is bound to be subjected into skepticism and controversies.
Human Sciences
While natural science relies on consistencies obtained through mathematical proofs and experimentation, the human science differs in its approach and proposition. Human science is the objective, informed critique of human existence and how it relates to reality (Berezina, 2005). Here man enquires questions about his existence, tries to find the truth through personal examination, while relating to the nature of things surrounding his world. There is no reliance on tested hypotheses or consistencies in data findings in human sciences. Human sciences psychology emphasizes qualitative research that explores questions regarding meaning, values, experience, and culture (Polkinghorne, 1983). Therefore in its nature you cannot predict the results of human interpretation.
Human sciences rely on how convincing these theories are, shown by figures or numbers, rather than actual coherent repetitive data which follows patterns as in natural sciences. It is thus based on mere power of convincing than actual consistencies in data being tested. Every human being has their own interpretation and the capacity to be convinced differently (Goldstein, M. & Goldstein, I., 1980). This difference in being convinced highlights where the variation in belief of theories emanates from. Different factors determine how we perceive or interpret human theories. Some of them include; emotions and uncertainty. When emotions are parched to an extent that human beings are removed from the realities of life, they are bound to make judgments based on their state. To them, their understanding of their world or theory at that level is considered to be the absolute truth. Emotions are sometimes misleading, because once they rescind, one is bound to struggle with the realities on the ground. It is then that they realize that their belief is somehow misguided. Therefore emotions present in human sciences theories influence how we perceive them.
Humans will believe what is put before them as true in cases where false evidence is given to prove the theory in question. Uncertainty also contributes to how we assume that a proper theory hasn’t be found yet so we take the most convincing as the truth. Truth is facts about something which have been found and tested and not guessed .The human mind operates in a window of proof and belief. Whatever one feeds the mind as the absolute truth about something, be it hypothetical or truly tested, becomes the minds construct of truth. Therefore man’s perception of “Think we know everything” sometimes does not hold. This is because we cannot concretely tell whether whatever one calls truth is influenced by emotion, uncertainty or proven facts. Even still we may subscribe into the same philosophy, none of our bunch may claim to know everything. Facts change with innovation of new theories that override the old ones. In such a case, then the notion of knowing it all is scrubbed off.
Conclusion
The human relations theory and the natural sciences theory have cast a very diverse inclination in their propositions. While the natural sciences construct their validity through scientific explanations, computations and consistencies in data being tested the human sciences portray a rather individual based understanding of things. While human science psychologists have held the same approach advanced by natural science in study of phenomena, they conclude that such science is not appropriate in study of human phenomena such as culture, history, art or psychology of a person .It is well applicable in study if physical objects as in physics and chemistry. Natural sciences put more emphasis on the validity of figures and numbers found from the scientific enquiries while human sciences peg their understanding on individual capacities and idiosyncrasies involved in deriving what is true as conceived by their minds. In other words, they try to understand human beings rather than subject them into theoretical analysis which they have no link to.
The point of consistencies therefore only exists in natural sciences. The human sciences rely on close examination to determine their claim. Certainty and predictability sometimes form the basis of what is accepted as the truth or the highly acclaimed view. The think we know aspect will normally be a relative proposition depending on individual take on matters of reason. It is therefore, the minds interpretation of what is true that forms the basis of what we believe. Human beings belief what they read partly because it can be tested and validated by concrete logic while others base their belief on the fact that there is no better alternative explanation of what they are reading. Whatever one believes is sometimes predicated by the nature of their contact with that particular topic of reference. Therefore humans’ belief of theories is dictated by two major instincts as expostulated in this paper; reason, also referred to as proof and individualistic take on topics of enquiry as in the human sciences theories.
References
Berezina, M. (2005). Emotions and the economy. Princeton, United States, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/189251995?accountid=45049
Felin, Ferraro, Pfeiffer, & Sutton, R. (2009). Social reality, the boundaries of self-fulfilling prophecy, and Economics/How and why theories matter: A comment on Felin and Foss (2009). Organization Science, 20(3), 654-675,679-681. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/213831007?accountid=45049
Goldstein, M. & Goldstein, I. F. (1980). How we know: An exploration of the scientific process. New York: De Capo Press.
Hahn, U., & Charter, N. (1998). Understanding similarity: A joint project for psychology, case-based reasoning, and law. The Artificial Intelligence Review, 12(5), 393-427. Doi: 10.1023/A: 1006512431942
Polkinghorne, D. (1983). Methodology for the human sciences: Systems of inquiry. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.
