You are on page 1of 3

Mikhail Khoury

ToK 11, Turman

What is it about theories in the human sciences and natural sciences that makes them convincing?

In the courtroom of ToK, science takes on the role of a determined lawyer, whose aim is to convince the jury of his theories. The natural sciences and the human sciences defend their cases with the shared objective of proving their ideas to their audiences. The attorneys take on different tactical approaches: while one employs mathematical rationale in investigating the natural world, the other taps into the emotional vulnerability of the jury to explain human behavior. What is it then about these arguments and theories of the human and natural sciences that makes them convincing? Furthermore, to what extent do these theories, in conjunction with the ways of knowing, impact the credibility of these sciences? In evaluating these areas of knowledge, the roles of different ways of knowing will be identified, and their associative knowledge issues addressed. The human and natural sciences differ in theories and their methodology, but share the same audience to whom they preach. Their subjects in science are different, and so their procedures adapt accordingly. While the natural sciences allow themselves to observe, react and interfere, the human sciences are faced with more particular restraints to ensure a reliable study. (reference) Nonetheless, their audience remains constant: whether an individual or a group of individuals, the target audience shares in common human nature. Though the natural sciences may consult with technology, they address the same crowd as the human sciences, and so face an emotional barrier, contrarily essential to the human sciences. To both areas of knowledge, the overarching situation has: controlled variables as the audience, independent variables as the theories and ways of knowing used, and the dependant variable as the impact of these theories, and how convincing they are. The issues and conflicts arise when, in rare cases, the sciences overlap is argument. A significant example to this overlap is in the contrast between psychology and psychiatry. Objectively, the two sciences are different approaches in tackling the same objective. Psychology aims to help patients through an emotional understanding, employing the theories of the human sciences. Psychiatry on the other hand aims to help patients with chemical and medical means, employing the theories of the natural sciences. The question at hand is therefore what is it about the theories in these sciences that makes them convincing? On a personal level, the theories of the two are reduced to being an emotional comfort versus a logical reasoning. Does treatment make me feel better, or regulate chemical imbalance in my body? In greater context, the theories in these sciences relate to different ways of knowing, which implicitly determine how convincing they are. The human sciences appeal to emotion, while the natural sciences appeal more to

The human sciences are empathetic. and emotion. and factors in population happiness and way of living. and a sensory assurance. and are powerful for this dependability. Geography examines human migration. A vague line is drawn between the natural sciences striving for an objective perspective. Turman reason and sense perception. altogether influenced by an emotional conscious. personal communication makes the theories convincing. making the theories convincing to their audiences. and analyses it with various models which take social status. Geography as a human science. Part of the comfort in each science. and allowing room for empathy and compassion. anticipation and hope. yet which differ in the ways of knowing. while the human sciences reveal sentimental support in their theories. and with feelings of discontent. The natural sciences are on the other hand consistent. a logical trust. as a particular domain. the same scale is applied to my courses of geography and physics. As a student to both classes. the common ground to making them convincing. on the other hand. Language plays a balanced role as a means to communicate between the student and the science. and even plausible to certain scenarios. Though the placebo effect is convincing. I am exposed to a more emotionally based study as well as a logical and reasonbased study. and the human sciences endorsing a subjective perspective. The personal connection between the human science and its designated student creates a bond of emotional reassurance. or in logical process as a natural reaction. and physics as a natural science. So what is it then about these studies that makes them convincing? The human sciences appeal individually to their audience: they make a personal connection. but with different perspective and thus different ways of knowing. To relate this concept more personally. A prime example is the placebo effect. Geography empathizes with its study.Mikhail Khoury ToK 11. each can repeat their studies. whether in emotional response as a human commonality. relating the student to the subject. examines the same pattern as organism movement nucleating from focal points. whether with other people or other environments. Both are crucial elements in convincing the individual. The natural sciences deliver tangible evidence. Physics. and feel with their students emotions that reflect in all people. habitat aesthetics. This brings to light a contradiction in reason. In specifically studying human migration. aim to explain movement in nature. where medication chemically useless heals a patient with emotional reassurance. how accurate is it then? And so to what extent can . furthermore. The commonality in both sciences seems reliability in the study. specifically chemistry. is the element of reliability and consistency. while physics is distant and general to its study. and even joy of living into account. a student could compensate with social disparity and discrimination. Issues of knowledge arise when the sciences clash in their models. Both apply their theories to human movement.

The ways of knowing are ultimately a common source to which each science has a unique combination and rank. This personal bond between the sciences and the individual creates issues in knowledge relevant to their dependability and reliability beyond personal experience: though the two sciences appear to be on either side of a trial.Mikhail Khoury ToK 11. The theories of the natural and human sciences are supported by the ways of knowing. making them relatable and therefore convincing. . the ways of knowing associative to each science make up the convincing argument of their theories. While the placebo effect might answer the question of how convincing is an emotional approach in the human sciences. This difference is the basis of how convincing their theories are. while the natural sciences abide by consistent and coherent logic. The human sciences appeal to the emotional student. The human mind is still a “black box” (reference) to science. The sciences share an aspect of reassurance in their theories. or reason than sense perception? In deeper context. a partiality in the ways of knowing for the individual? Does emotion play a more powerful role than reason. The human and natural sciences ultimately differ in their use of these ways of knowing. Yet contrarily emotion can easily justify reason as a vehicle to feeling comfort and security. and distinguishing between an objective and logical truth. yet defined by their credibility in context of their audiences. while reason and sensory proof certify the natural sciences. and so not entirely a controlled variable in scientific study. the subtle commonalities in these areas of knowledge help reveal the powerful bias of assurance in individual understanding. but in competition with the natural sciences their subjectivity is put into question. and consequently key to the issues that arise when the sciences conflict. Emotional appeal validates the human sciences. Is there. what impact does this prejudice in the ways of knowing have on defining absolute truth. I interpret emotional appeal to be a logical correlation between an individual and the group. In reference to psychology and psychiatry. Turman individually relatable data be credible? The human sciences have been shown to be convincing. consequently. it brings endless more about the validity of the data it yields. and an emotionally recurrent reality? As having a rather logically swayed perspective. enrolled as a math and physics student. consequently I put more emphasis on reason than emotion.