The sciences are more successful than the humanities because they are based on empirical facts as opposed

to opinions. Discuss. 1) The sciences are based on empirical facts as opposed to opinions. 2) If the sciences are based on empirical facts as opposed to opinions, then the sciences are more successful than the humanities. Important terms: Sciences: that which employs the scientific method and observation based on phenomena Successful: objectivity of knowledge claims / utility P1) Sciences are based on empirical facts as opposed to opinions. - Natural science and social science is based on observation of natural phenomena and social phenomena respectively. i.e. based on sense data - The process of experimentation seems value free given that the experimenter is a passive observer. e.g. machines do the recording. Hence, it seems that knowledge is not based on the opinions of the experimenter. Obj: On closer inspection, science may be based on opinions as well because it is not value free. > value laden observation The opinions, in this case, pre-conceived notions of the experimenter, may cause the experimenter to view things differently, such that empirical facts are tainted by opinion e.g. the flavor of chips > theory ladenness of language - theoretical terms assume the existence of theoretical entities and make various assumptions during an experiment which cannot be tested (Duhem-Quine thesis). These assumptions are the opinions of the experimenter. Social science may also be based on opinions if the ISS approach were adopted. - in the ISS approach, opinions of the people as well as the scientist plays an important role in understanding the motives and feelings behind social action. Def: Nevertheless, despite the facts possibly tainted by opinion, scientists do not construct scientific knowledge based on hearsay and all knowledge claims have to have empirical evidence. i.e. must be able to be traced back to empirical data (Hume). Thus, sciences are still largely based on empirical facts. P1 is true. P2) 1) It seems that science is more successful in providing a stronger justification for knowledge than the humanities and also more objective knowledge given that it is based on empirical data rather than opinions. > Scientific knowledge is justified more reliably than the knowledge of the humanities because empirical data is less subjective than opinion and grants a greater likelihood for truth. Define Reliablism: truth getting and truth indicating properties of a method. - empirical data is an objective arbiter of truth whereas opinions in the humanities are subjective to personal opinion, motives. For e.g. the observation that water boils at 100c is unlikely to change. However, the biased historical sources based on the opinion of the historian may mask the truth. e.g. following Evita Peron death in 1952, the Peronian regime refused to allow any domestic media to disclose that she suffered from ovarian cancer.

- As such, historical knowledge may be justified based on false accounts whereas scientific evidences are less likely to be false, such that science is more reliable and is more successful with more reliable knowledge. Moreover, scientific knowledge is more objective because it is not based on the subjective opinions which may not describe reality but rather individual whim. 2) It seems that science is more successful in being useful than the humanities because it can give us better predictions of the future and allow us to manipulate phenomena to achieve our intended goals because it is based on empirical data. The aforementioned objectivity of science, derived from the objectivity of sense data, allows science to uncover laws of nature, which can be made use of for predictions. For example, since the discovery of the law of gravity, scientists have been able to make accurate predictions about the speed an object falls at different time intervals. However, the humanities cannot be so consistent in their predictions of the future. This is given that historical evidences are opinions of people and the the actions of people of the past are also based on personal opinion. Thus, when a historian tries to use the past to tell us something about the future, it is at best inductively strong and is likely to be inductively weak. for e.g. when negotiations of the past are carried out without consideration of the other party, it almost always results in a stalemate. Thus, we seem to know that if negotiations are to be carried out in the same way, the end result will be the same. However, the context of this knowledge is based on the subjective opinions of the people of the past and may not apply today, where people may have different views. Hence, the predictions of science is still more certain because natural phenomena are expected to behave in a more or less similar way. 3)However, it seems that the sciences may not be more successful in expressing and allowing us to understand humanistic truths than the humanities because they are based on empirical evidence. Natural sciences only describes natural phenomena and cannot tell us about humans. Social sciences may tell us about the social world but by focussing on empirical evidence, it excludes the non-tangible aspects of social reality such as feelings and thoughts which cannot really be empirically derived. The humanities on the other hand allow for opinions to be expressed. In so doing, it can express human emotions. for example, art can be cathartic. Moreover, the humanities, with the subjective opinion as its basis, can describe societies. For example, history can show us a sense of identity and allow us to understand the traits of humans living in a particular society. for e.g. history provides us with knowledge of the past of the middle east so that we can make an informed opinion about the middle east situation. 4) However, it seems that the sciences may not be more successful in prescribing a course of action because they are based on empirical evidence. Since Science is only based on evidence, it can only tell us what is the case but not what ought to be the case (is ought problem). Ethics (if its a humanities) can tell us what should be done. It seems that science is more successful in some ways while the humanities in others because science is based on empirical evidence. Hence, P2 is false as it is a blanket statement. P1 is true, but C does not follow.