Download What is the difference between social and natural sciences?

What is the difference between social
and natural sciences?
Doctoral Seminar “Forschungsmethodik I”
HS11-10,118,1.00, Fall Semester 2011
Prof. Dr. Roman Boutellier
Prof. Dr. Oliver Gassmann
Prof. Dr. Sabine Raeder
Denniz Dönmez
Yannic Domigall
(ETHZ, D-MTEC)
(HSG, IWI-HSG)
What is the difference between social and natural sciences?
2
1. Distinguishing sciences
Science is generally understood as an endeavor to understand, explain and predict the world
we live in using distinctive methods of enquiry in an attempt to construct theories. It is,
however, not easy to find a set of features that define what separates sciences from other
attempts to understand and explain the world, such as religion, astrology and fortune telling,
which are generally not regarded as branches of sciences (Okasha, 2002). Citing
Wittgenstein, who argued that there is no fixed set of features defining what is a “game” but
there is rather a loose cluster of features most of which are possessed by most games,
Okasha suggests the same may be true for sciences. Based on some of these features, we
will contrast two scientific branches, namely the natural and social sciences, in this essay.
According to authors such as Anzenbacher (1981, S. 22) and Chmielewicz (1994), both of
them are real sciences, as opposed to formal sciences, the latter of which solve imaginary
problems and include, for instance, mathematics or Theoretical Computer Science. Other
authors separate real sciences into further categories such as literary studies or applied
sciences, the latter including medicine and engineering (Dewey, 2008). While the question of
what science is, and the separation of all of its branches is out oft the scope of this essay, we
shall now turn to a comparison of the natural and social sciences.
There are a number of similarities between the natural and social sciences, which include the
use of similar methods and partly overlapping epistemological and ontological stances, i.e.
stances regarding the creation of knowledge and the nature of reality. However, there are
also a number of elements that distinguish the two, such as their different origins, subjects of
study, and limitations. Following definitions of natural and social sciences, these elements
will be contrasted in the following.
2. Natural Science
2.1. Definition
Ledoux (2002, p. 34) defines natural sciences as „disciplines that deal only with natural
events (i.e. independent and dependent variables in nature) using scientific methods“. While
the employment of scientific methods is generally regarded as typical but not exclusive of
natural sciences, it is the focus on natural events that distinguishes natural from social
science.
2.2. Origin
According to Büchel (1992), the birth of natural science is marked by changing world views
introduced by Renaissance thinkers who questioned earlier explanations about the world and
turned to more systematic methods of investigation. Early leaders of this ‘Scientific
Revolution’ included Copernicus and Galileo who were concerned with problems from
disciplines including astronomy and physics, among others. Natural sciences arose from
curiosity about the world, as well as the endeavor to transform nature in favor of human
necessities of life, both of which had not been possible to pursue freely in the era of slavery
of the ancient society (Büchel, 1992).
2.3. Subject of study
The aim of the natural sciences is to discover the laws that rule the world (Büchel, 1992).
The focus lies hereby on the natural and not on the social world, although the differentiation
is not always simple. There are historically three core areas of the natural sciences:
chemistry, biology and physics. Nevertheless this is not a final list of research areas, since
many other disciplines were later born out of these. As more knowledge is created, more
specific questions arise. This leads to the fact that early natural scientists were generalists
from today’s perspective, and later specialized in newly emerging disciplines such as
astronomy in the beginning, different engineering disciplines later, and rather recently (i.e. in
the last century) created fields such as robotics or bionics.
What is the difference between social and natural sciences?
3
2.4. Methods
Natural science methods are possibly the most popular methods of scientific investigation.
The New American Oxford Dictionary even defines “scientific methods” in general as
methods characterizing “natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic
observation, measurement, and experiment”. While there are other methods used by other
sciences, these are without doubt the most important methods used in the natural sciences.
Compared to the social sciences, the natural sciences rely more on mathematically based
methods. The reason for this is the more uniform nature of natural sciences and the
countability that enables the scientists to apply mathematics (Büchel, 1992, p.228). While
physics or chemistry rely to a large extend on controlled experimental settings, such settings
cannot be created so easily for most investigations in economics or sociology.
2.5. Philosophical stances
With thinkers including Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, fundamental criticism of natural
science approaches has emerged during the 20th century. Before Popper, the way in which
knowledge is created was not questioned by most scientists, most of whom adopted an
inductive epistemology, in which a finding is regarded as general truth when a sufficient
number of experiments have led to the same outcome. Criticizing this, Popper put forward
that a theory cannot be confirmed by induction, but only falsified by a simple observation
(Büchel, 1992, p. 227). For instance, a scientist observing the color of swans on a lake who
has seen a number of only white swans cannot conclude that all swans are white. Rather his
theory (‘all swans are white’) must be tried to falsify through the search of a black swan.
Later criticism by Kuhn addressed the values or “paradigms” which exist when scientific
investigations are carried out, and which are usually accepted without any reflection by
scientists. A paradigm consists of a set of fundamental theoretical assumptions and a set of
particular scientific problems that have been solved by means of these theoretical
assumptions (Okasha, 2002, p. 81). Kuhn stresses that normal scientists are not trying to
test the paradigm, but rather question their experimental technique, when a conflicting result
appears. The discovery of knowledge is therefore restricted to situations in which enough
scientists become convinced that a paradigm may be wrong, which leads to paradigm shift,
i.e. the establishment of a new paradigm. While there are also critics of Kuhn, arguing that
two paradigms may not necessarily be completely incompatible, the impact of Kuhn's ideas
has also been felt by other academic disciplines such as sociology and anthropology, and in
the general intellectual culture at large (Okasha, 2002, p.77).
2.6. Limitations
Among the most common limitations of natural science research are technical and financial
boundaries, both of which have been constantly pushed in history.
Technical boundaries are related to the inability to conduct precise measurements. These
boundaries have always been research foci themselves, and were pushed through the
invention of the telescope, the microscope, the geiger counter and many other measurement
instruments.
Financial boundaries play a role in most research projects, but can become especially severe
when expensive equipment has to be employed. Examples include experiments for which
space shuttles have to be launched, or infrastructure such as the CERN laboratory is
required.
3. Social Science
3.1. Definition
The disciplines of social sciences are viewed as those that deal with “human society, societal
groups, individuals in their relationships with others or institutions of societies and material
goods as expression of human cohabitation” (Bayer, 1992). This definition shows the
difficulty of grasping all aspects of social sciences as opposed to natural sciences, which
have a common perspective rather than a common subject of study. The distinction between
social and cultural sciences and humanities is controversial.
What is the difference between social and natural sciences?
4
3.2. Origin
The social sciences are much younger than the natural sciences. Even though the social
interactions in a society have probably been of interest for many centuries, scientific studies
of social interactions began as late as during the 19th century with sociological publications
including “Suicide” by Émile Durkheim and “Système de politique positive” by Auguste
Comte, the latter of which also set stone for a positivist approach to social sciences.
3.3. Subject of study
In contrast to the natural sciences, the study objects of social sciences can take notice of the
forecast of scientists. Subject of study are the phenomena of social interaction and
coexistence. Social Sciences can rather be classified by their common perspective then
through a specific subject of study. This perspective consists of the understanding and
studying of a social aspect of society, a group of people or a single individual. (Bayer, 1992,
p. 302).
3.4. Methods
One of the mainly used methods is the observation, as a social science counterpart of the
natural sciences experiment. It is much more difficult to carry out an experiment in social,
than in natural sciences. The reason therefore lies in the uncontrollability of social
environments. Because of that the measurability of the highly complex social processes is
often difficult or sometimes not possible at all. (Bayer, 1992, p. 302). Nevertheless
experiments are used in for example in the behavioral economics and social psychology,
even though not with the overwhelming success of the natural sciences experiments. Other
important methods in social sciences are: Interviews, surveys, case studies.
3.5. Philosophical stances
In contrast to the natural sciences, there was much more debate about the question of what
is acceptable knowledge among social scientists. Therefore, a number epistemological
stances exist, which shall only be introduced very briefly here.
Among the first popular stances in the social sciences is the positivist position, which had
been advocated by early social scientists like Compte who argued that studies of social
reality should apply the same methods as the natural sciences. It was criticized by advocates
of interpretivism, who argue that the social reality cannot be measured in the same way as
natural events. Rather, scientists have to aim at grasping the subjective meaning of social
actions. This thought is, e.g., reflected in Max Weber’s notion of Verstehen (Bryman, 2008).
3.6. Limitations
Studies in social sciences are often limited by various factors including the need to base
findings on interpretations, the complexity of a field in which single variables cannot be
controlled for easily, as well as ethical issues and financial problems.
Since the subject of study are social actions which are often motivated by a myriad of factors
that may be unknown even to the actors, social scientists who want to make a meaning of
their observations will have to interpret their data in order to analyze it.
Ethical issues arise many times from the fact that some very interesting questions may not
be studied without sacrificing the mental or physical safety of people. Examples where such
boundaries have been crossed include not only extreme situations in which subjects were left
uninformed may still have suffered from its consequences many years later or even have
died during the study.
4. Quantitative versus qualitative approaches
The social as well as the natural sciences increasingly depend on computer aided methods
for data analysis. Yet, in social research, scientific progress is less based on ever more
precise measurements, as more on better analyses and interpretations of data (Mayntz,
2005). This is because the natural sciences usually employ quantitative methods for data
What is the difference between social and natural sciences?
5
collection, whereas in the social sciences quantitative measurements are not necessarily the
only standard by which data is acquired. A growing debate about how data should be
collected emerged among post-positivist social science thinkers during the second half of the
last century, leading to a shift to qualitative approached among many researchers. Other
than relying on countable facts, these approaches span the whole spectrum from purely
descriptive to strictly analytical ones (Mey, 2005), in which the underlying questions are
always also about the discovery of a subjective reality rather than only observable facts.
5. Summary
Among the many branches of science, the natural and the social sciences stand out as two
branches with disciplines that have some similarities, but differ strongly, above all, in what
they aim to investigate. Studies of the natural sciences began during the 16th and 17th
century, whereas the social sciences emerged some 300 years later.
Commonalities include a number of methods such as experiments and observations, where
quantitative methods can be applied for analyses. However, being concerned with the
underlying meaning of social interactions, the social sciences rely not only on what might be
called exact, mathematical methods, but also on a number of qualitative approaches such as
interviews and ethnographies.
Both branches of science have limitation that can be similar in nature, e.g., financial issues.
Most limitations of the two are another point where they differ starkly. While the natural
sciences often face technical boundaries, the social sciences experience difficulties as they
study situations in which environments cannot be controlled easily, which often renders
experimental settings impossible and leaves scientists relying on interpretations. Additionally,
ethical issues play a much larger role in the social sciences.
6. Implications
The most important implications for a dissertation project are:
1. Awareness of own position: Any scientist should be clear about his own position
and consciously subscribe to a philosophical stance. Especially in the social
sciences, where epistemological debates abound, the awareness of one’s position
can foster effective discussions with other scientists.
2. Choice of methods: Methods are appropriate or inappropriate dependent on the
existence of knowledge in a specific area of research in social sciences. If theories
already exist in a field of research a quantitative approach is often more preferable.
Existing data can be used to validate models, or new data may be collected
empirically. If on the other hand the examined field of research has not been part of a
serious research project, the best choice of method is often a qualitative approach.
Before a quantitative approach may solve any problem, the relationships between
cause and effect have to be modeled on a qualitative basis.
3. Object of knowledge: A huge difference between social and natural sciences lies in
the object of knowledge. While the laws in natural sciences rule the world
independent of the research results of scientists, this is not true for social sciences.
The members of society are deeply influenced by theoretical models of the social
sciences.
4. Context: The subdivision of sciences allows us to classify the different papers we
read into several categories. This enables us to better understand the context of the
authors.
5. Cross-disciplinary learning: Through the study of different disciplines and methods
that they apply, researchers can learn to view their own work through a different lens,
as well as critically reflect it and possibly learn to solve problems using
unconventional approaches.
What is the difference between social and natural sciences?
6
7. Commented Bibliography
Anzenbacher, A. 1981, Einführung in die Philosophie, Herder, Wien
This book gives an introduction to all major problems of western philosophy. It combines the history of
philosophy with the systematic thinking of the presence. Anzenbacher, who was professor of
philosophy, suggests on page 22 a subdivision of science into real-, and formal sciences.
Bayer, O. & F. Stölting 1992, Sozialwissenschaften, in: Seiffert, H. & Radnitzky, G.,
Handlexikon zur Wissenschaftstheorie, Ehrenwirth, München
The article provides a short introduction into the different perceptions of the social sciences.
Furthermore the authors open up the field of epistemology by showing what kinds of methods are
used in the social science. In the paragraph E. the authors describe the relationship between social
sciences and practice.
Büchel, W. 1992, Naturwissenschaften, in: Seiffert, H. & Radnitzky, G., Handlexikon zur
Wissenschaftstheorie, Ehrenwirth, München
Büchel starts his article with the origin and structure of natural sciences. He describes the rise of the
natural sciences from a nature philosophical philosophy to a conception of the world. Furthermore he
mentions the importance of self-limitation and probability for the natural sciences. The last chapters
are about methodological problems and objectivity in natural sciences.
Bryman, A. 2008, Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford
This standard textbook for social scientists provides a very good introduction to quantitative and
qualitative methods, as well as historical context and background of the social sciences. Equipped with
many examples and aimed at students, the book by Professor Alan Bryman draws upon his extensive
experience as a social researcher.
Chmielewicz, K. 1994, Forschungskonzeptionen der Wirtschaftswissenschaften, 2nd
edition, Poeschel, Stuttgart
Besides offering a perspective on philosophical aspects of science written with an economic
background, Chmielewicz provides in his book a useful system to classify several branches of
sciences, including criteria that distinguish the natural from the social sciences.
Dewey, M. 2008, A Classification and Subject Index for Cataloguing and Arranging the
Books and Pamphlets of a Library, The Echo Library, Middlesex, UK
This work, originally written by Dewey in 1876, is an early attempt to classify and distinguish different
scientific branches. It was later modified into the Universal Decimal Classification (sometimes referred
to as the Dewey Decimal Classification), which is the most commonly used classification system to
differentiate between the many branches of sciences (among other separations) in libraries today.
Hayek, F. A. 1979, ‘The Individualist and ‘Compositive’ Method of the Social Sciences’,
in The-Counter Revolution of Science, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis
What is the difference between social and natural sciences?
7
In this book chapter, the influential economist F. A. Hayek discusses differences between the natural
and the social science. Addressing the relationship of a social scientist to an investigated
phenomenon, and the relationship of the elements of a phenomenon to the phenomenon, his
argument is that social sciences can merely explain the principles of the emergence of a phenomenon,
but not forecast its results, as the natural sciences aim to do.
Ledoux, S. F. 2002, Defining Natural Sciences, in: Behaviorology Today, vol. 5, no. 1,
pp. 34-36.
This short article is an attempt to provide a definition of natural science by a professor who claims to
study the natural science discipline of behavior called behaviorology (cf.
http://www.canton.edu/employee/ledoux).
Mayntz, R. 2005, Forschungsmethoden und Erkenntnispotential: Natur- und
Sozialwissenschaften im Vergleich, MPIfG Discussion Paper 05/7, Max Planck Institute
for the Study of Societies, Cologne
This white paper contrasts beautifully the natural and social sciences before the background of
different methods that both employ. Along with a discussion of quantitative versus qualitative
approaches, the fundamentally different stances of the two branches of science are contrasted with
regard to implications for scientists and interpretations of their findings.
Mey, G. & Mruck. K. 2005, Qualitative Forschung: Zur Einführung in einen
prosperierenden Wissenschaftszweig, Historical Social Research, vol. 30 no. 1, pp. 527
The article offers a brief overview of principal methodological orientations, and shared paradigmatic
premises, presented with many references to the work of influential contemporary researchers in a
historical context.
Okasha, S. 2002, Philosophy of Science: A very short introduction, Oxford University
Press, Oxford
This book is a very good introduction into the origins, past and present problems of science from a
philosophical perspective. It illustrates many of the crucial stages of development, including criticism
and streams of ideas at different times during the last centuries.