Are social and natural sciences connected?
I would answer yes definitely!!
I would answer yes definitely!!
No. Why would you think that? Do you have some point to make?Are social and natural sciences connected?
I would answer yes definitely!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciencesSocial Sciences is the field of sciences concerned with the studies of the social life of human groups and individuals, including economics, geography, history, political science, psychology, social studies, and sociology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_scienceIn science, the term natural science refers to a rational approach to the study of the universe, which is understood as obeying rules or law of natural origin. The term natural science is also used to distinguish those fields that use the scientific method to study nature from the social sciences, which use the scientific method to study human behavior and society; and from the formal sciences, such as mathematics and logic, which use a different methodology.
Popper was a philosopher of science. His work concerns some kind of ideal science that doesn't really exist. Sure falsifiability is a pretty good criterion that we SHOULD follow in formulating hypotheses/theories but the fact is that real scientists just don't think like that.Natural sciences are not really sciences in the strict way of what science objectives are. (Read Karl popper). But humanities and sciences of course are connected.
I tend to disagree since neuroscience is now discovering how much the natural state of the brain determines social outcomes and visa versa.They are connected, but the burden of evidence in social sciences such as political science, economics, or psychology is a lot lower than the burden of evidence in qualitative natural sciences such as biology and medicine, which are a lot lower than the burden of evidence in quantitative natural sciences such as physics and chemistry.
So, when you make an assertion backed up by evidence in a social science such as psychology or economics, one can assume that the rigor of the evidence and the reasoning used to support the conclusion is probably a lot lower than it would be in a natural science.
Professor of Bioethics, School of Law, Queen Mary, University of London
I am interested in the bioethical aspects of research in and applications of the neurosciences and psychiatry, and in particular at the analogies and disanalogies with genetics, issues in clinical trials, and the conceptual aspects of neuroscience explanations of behaviour. I was a participant in the UK MRC’s neuroethics workshop, and chaired the 2005 Wellcome Trust summer school on ELSI and the neurosciences.
PhD Student, BIOS, London School of Economics
My research focuses on neuroscientific accounts of offending. Taking the case study of the British Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder (DSPD) programme, and using a combination of ethnographic, interview and documentary research methods I am investigating the ways in which neuroscientific thought may be interacting with this specific environment. I aim to outline the conditions of possibility for neuroscientific thought and action about offending, to describe the extent of its emergence in the DSPD context, and the mechanisms which have shaped its uptake and development.
My studentship is part of the three year ESRC funded Brain, Self and Society project, led by Nikolas Rose.
http://www.neurosocieties.eu/members/socialStudiesOfNeuroscienceDirectory.htm [Broken]John Bone
Lecturer in Sociology
For a few years now I have been working on a theoretical framework that integrates social theory with an understanding of human beings informed by developments in neuroscience, emerging from the ‘decade of the brain’. The resulting model acknowledges that society, and the individuals who comprise it, are products of a dialectical process of ‘co-construction’ between brain and social experience. Thus, it is recognised that social processes (at both the micro and macro level) are mediated and ‘structured’ by the inherent cognitive and emotional capacities shared by all human beings, and that individual brain development is reciprocally responsive to ongoing social experience. The model proposes various ways in which key social phenomena can be more clearly understood by going beyond conventional social theory and adopting such a perspective. An outline, ‘The Social Map and the Problem of Order’, has been published in Theory and Science 6:1 (2005), while a revised version is applied to understanding issues of national and cultural identity in ‘The Social Map: Cohesion, Conflict & National Identity, published in Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 12:3-4 (2006). For anyone who might be interested both articles are available online.
Definitely, postmodernism is much more rampant in the humanities than in the social sciences.Well, natural sciences seek to darwinize culture, and social sciences use postmodernist thinking to turn natural sciences into a dogmatic belief system devoid of objectivity.
Nah, that sounds too pessimistic.
I don't care what Wikipedia says. The social sciences were born when philosophy when an empirical base was given to it from the natural sciences -- observation, statistics, experimentation, mathematical rigor (especially, in the case of economics), etc. So they are definitely related by birth. Since nature is considered female, some could argue that the natural sciences was the mother of the social sciences with philosophy as its father?
How rude! All social sciences use the scientific method, maybe economics less than sociology, political science, and sociology.Psychology uses the scientific method, so it is a science, although the predictive value of current theories is pretty limited. As far as I can tell political science and sociology don't generally use the scientific method, so I would say they are not.
The difference is that while the natural sciences have forgotten about their roots in induction and focus solely on deduction now, the social sciences focus on both.
What is an "obsessed politically correct fool"?I think its very important that intellectuals push their ideologies as hard as they can push them.
In saying that, the world is a set of competing "ideologies" and while there is a diversity of opinion there will be a competition similar to Darwinian Selection which ultimately "culls" the obsessed politically correct "fools" from the system.