Human Sciences

Scope, methodology and purpose: introduction

The human sciences aim to describe and explain human behaviour of individuals or members of a
group. Although the human sciences comprise a wide range of disciplines such as psychology,
social and cultural anthropology, economics, political science and geography, they all have
common features such as a shared methodology and the overall object of study: human existence
and behaviour. Within TOK, history is not included amongst the human sciences. The object of
study of history is quite unique because the past is, well... in the past. Consequently, history uses
its own methods to gain knowledge about the (recorded) past.

It is quite fascinating how such a wide range of di erent disciplines within the human sciences
aim to acquire knowledge about human behaviour. What psychology aims to explain is very
di erent from, let's say, economics. This will a ect the nuances of the methods, concepts and
approaches used by each discipline. Nevertheless, the overarching focus of human sciences lies
with knowledge about human existence and behaviour.

The study of human behaviour is complex in nature and it can be approached through di erent
perspectives. Other areas of knowledge, such as the arts, can also o er insights into human
behaviour. A novel like 1984 can, for example, give (imaginary) insights into how people behave in
(totalitarian) societies. This novel also o ers some powerful re ections on the connection between
power, language and politics. Performance artists like Abramovic can show how an audience
interacts with their art and this might tell us something more about human behaviour.

Human scientists, however, aim to acquire this knowledge through a scienti c approach. In this
sense, there are obvious overlaps with the natural sciences, where we also use the scienti c
method. Human scientists use observation, collect data, form hypotheses, aim to test the validity
of these hypotheses and possibly falsify them. Theories are accepted if they stand the test of
time, and rejected if proven wrong.

Human scientists may even uncover laws, such as the law of supply and demand in economics.
However, a law in the human sciences does not mean entirely the same thing as a law from the
natural sciences. In fact, human scientists face some speci c challenges when they apply the
scienti c method. Firstly, collecting data (through observation) is not that straightforward.
Secondly, it is not always easy to falsify and test hypotheses.

Finally, bias or hasty generalisations may lead to incorrect knowledge. These problems are not
solely con ned to the human sciences, but some of them are magni ed when we study human
behaviour. It would, nevertheless, be foolish to dismiss all knowledge produced by human
scientists as "unscienti c" or of a lesser quality in se. Good human scientists are aware of these
possible pitfalls; they show a critical awareness of the methodology they employ and they use
concepts such as "causation" and "certainty" with caution. 

ff
fi
fi
fi
ff
ff
ff
fl
fi
fi
ff
fi
ff
fi
How do we use knowledge acquired by the human sciences?

Human behaviour is fascinating. Knowledge regarding

this behaviour is interesting on its own, but it can also
be very "useful". Knowledge about the principle of
"supply and demand"  helps us understand how and
why transactions on markets take place and how prices
are determined. By analysing patterns and studying
things such as debt and money supply, economists can
(sometimes) predict economic crises.  Insights into
psychology can help us deal with emotional di culties
such as depression. Sociological research about gender
and status can serve to create more egalitarian
societies.

All this can ultimately lead to a better, more empathetic world. However, knowledge about human
behaviour is not always used for this purpose. It can also be used for sel sh motives, to steer and
even manipulate people's actions. Companies can use knowledge gathered through market
research to in uence consumer behaviour, for example. When research into human behaviour is
funded by entities that will pro t from its ndings, the outcome of this research will more than
likely be reductionist (the pro t aspect) and the methods or purpose may not always be morally
sound. We sometimes forget that companies zealously (and rather sneakily) gather information
and data regarding our online behaviour.

Access to this data is used to form knowledge about our (online) behaviour. Powerful entities,
such as states and advertising companies, may bene t from access to this knowledge. Intelligent
machines are incredibly e cient at spotting patterns, from which generalisations regarding human
behaviour are created. We increasingly come across claims that face recognition technology and
AI can identify and even predict human behaviour. This knowledge can be used to create amazing
tools such as a machine that can help predict (and hopefully prevent) suicide.

However, knowledge gathered through and created by AI can be used for discriminatory
purposes. If face recognition promises to spot a potential criminal by analysing the features of
your face, a potential employer could use such "calculations" against you. In addition to the
obvious ethical considerations, we should not forget that the "discovery" of these patterns may
not be as neutral, accurate or free from bias as we might think. For example, in 2017 a paper was
published about a new algorithm  that can allegedly guess with remarkable (better than human)
accuracy whether you are gay or straight by analysing your facial features. It seems tempting to
think that the ndings are neutral because the algorithm as such is not human. However, human
researchers were at the basis of the development of this technology. By leaving out people of
colour and making no allowances for transgender and bisexual people, the accuracy of this
particular piece of research can be disputed. We can also question how useful or even ethical is it
to describe human behaviour through mathematical language. Does apparent "accuracy" come at
the price of reductionism?  Cases such as the one mentioned above, also re-open the  age-old
nature versus nurture debate. If we accept that the shape of our face (partly) determines our
sexual orientation or disposition towards violent behaviour how much free will do we have?

Attempts to reduce human behaviour to a "numbers only game", or a "purely biological" matter,
have often gone wrong. In short, knowledge about human behaviour can be used for di erent
purposes. When we assess the quality of knowledge in this area, it is important to evaluate who or
what was at the source of the knowledge produced and why the knowledge was produced to
begin with.

fl
fi
ffi
fi
fi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
ff
 Methodology: How do human scientists aim to acquire
knowledge?

What is so scienti c about the human sciences?

Although there are obvious overlaps between the human

and the natural sciences, some special challenges arise in
applying the scienti c method to the human sciences. The
scienti c method requires observation, from which we may
form a hypothesis. This hypothesis is tested and falsi ed.
The latter often happens through experimentation, although
this is not always possible (yet). The observation stage can
be quite tricky in the human sciences. Arguably, we can
only ever observe the outward manifestations of human
behaviour; we have no real objective and direct access to
inner thoughts and feelings as such. This makes the
situation di erent from a natural scientist who observes,
let's say, the properties of a leaf. MRI's may well give
additional information about which parts of the brain react given certain situations or stimuli, but
we can never truly get inside a person's mind to gure out what drives his or her behaviour.

The very act of observing may also a ect the observed. True, this may also be the case in the
natural sciences (e.g. the temperature of the thermometer could a ect the temperature of an
observed liquid), but the e ects are sometimes more profound in the human sciences. When
people know they are being observed, they may behave di erently (think of the behaviour of
participants in reality TV shows, for example). Some complex things, such as consciousness or
happiness, are also very hard to measure. You may have come across a global happiness index,
where countries are ranked according to happiness. But have you ever wondered how we
measure happiness? Measuring happiness is very di erent from how we measure things such as
the temperature of a liquid in the natural sciences. 

When human scientists have gathered data through observation, they may be able to form a
hypothesis, which will then need to be tested. It is not always easy to test the validity of this
hypothesis, and both natural as well as human scientists come across obstacles in this area.
Nevertheless, assessing the validity of a hypothesis is more di cult within the human sciences.
Not all knowledge about human behaviour can be gathered through experimentation within a
laboratory style setting (where we can control variables). This is not always desirable nor possible
(some behaviours can only be observed in their natural setting). We can never repeat human
experiments in exactly the same conditions, if experimentation is at all possible. After all, either
the participants will be di erent, or the same participants will have changed (and have previous
knowledge of the experiment). Human scientists may look at the world around them to check if
what was predicted by the hypothesis is re ected in reality. However, the very act of predicting
(e.g. in economics) may a ect the prediction.

In this sense human scientists nd it quite di cult to claim with certainty that something is a
scienti c fact. This is why your psychology teacher may con dently talk about correlation, but
less so about causation. Scienti c theories (whether natural or human) only survive as long as
they stand the test of time. Laws are a little di erent. In the natural sciences, laws generally
speaking do not change over time and they are fairly good at predicting what will happen.
Nevertheless, laws in human sciences are not always good at predicting what will happen. In this
sense "human sciences usually uncover trends rather than laws" (Lagemaat, 2015).

But does all this mean that knowledge from the human sciences is "of a lesser quality"? Not
necessarily. The subject matter of both areas of knowledge is di erent, so it is not desirable to
approach the study of all human behaviour through the exact same methodology as a natural
scientist's. Sometimes a natural scientist can o er complementary knowledge that can help
explain human behaviour and o er (partial) treatment for things such as depression. However, this
fi
fi
ff
fi
fi
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
fi
ff
fl
ffi
fi
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff
fi
ffi
ff
ff
 may not be possible in other disciplines like economics. The human sciences can explain many
things that cannot be explained through other areas of knowledge. In this sense, it would be
foolish to reduce the human sciences to only what can be con rmed by the natural sciences
merely because we are uncomfortable with the apparent lack of certainty.

How objective can our knowledge about human behaviour be?

How may bias lead to awed results?


How much evidence is needed before we can make generalisations?

On the whole, scientists aim to be objective

because bias can a ect the validity of the
knowledge they produce. Although it is arguably
impossible to be entirely free from bias within the
human sciences, it is important to understand
where a lack of objectivity may sneak in, and how
we can avoid it. A little bit of "personal
engagement" can drive the production of
knowledge and we sometimes need to use our
"self" to interpret the behaviour of others. However,
history shows that bias and a lack of awareness of
our own perspective can lead to the creation of
distorted knowledge.

Human behaviour is di cult to grasp and we may

not get to observe this behaviour in its most natural
or "neutral" form. The very act of observing may a ect what you observe. When cultural
anthropologists want to gain knowledge about how communities behave, they may immerse
themselves within these communities and "go native". However, their very presence may still
a ect the way people behave and lead to inaccurate knowledge. In addition, anthropologists may
face linguistic di culties or use their own cultural bias to interpret events, even if this is reduced
to a minimum. Something similar happens in psychology. When  people actively take part in an
experiment, they often behave di erently.

Clever psychologists and sociologists may devise techniques to disguise the purpose of their
experiments. They "trick" participants into thinking they are being tested on something else than
what appears to be the case. This may help them come up with more accurate results. An
experimental approach to the study of human behaviour can lead to the production of sound and
reasonably objective knowledge. This can be illustrated with behavioural economics. 

Economist  Vernon Smith, for example "developed a methodology that allowed researchers to
examine the e ect of policy changes before they are implemented" (Investopedia.com). There are
many aspects of human behaviour, however, that cannot be researched via controlled
experiments (where we can control the variables and measure more accurately). These aspects
can only be observed in a real-life setting, with less or even no control of variables. There may
also be a discrepancy between ndings observed in a controlled environment and real life
applications.

Human behaviour is complex and dependent on numerous factors that may not have been
accounted for previously.  When we observe human behaviour, we will always observe a small
segment of people. From this, we may conclude things about the larger population. Such hasty
ff
ff
ffi
ffi
ff
fl
ff
fi
ff
fi
generalisations may lead to false conclusions. We could conclude things based on a sample
section that is really too small, or we may form inaccurate conclusions about other communities
based on our own values and behaviours. This is exacerbated by the fact that we cannot always
"test" our hypothesis or repeat experiments to falsify previous hypotheses. Bias can also an issue
within the natural sciences, but in some cases less so because experimentation may be easier
and there is less need to consider things such as values and culture when we produce knowledge
in the human sciences.