Responses 005 (2011-2012)
Question 5 in the list is: "What is it about theories in the human sciences and natural sciences that makes them convincing?"
This is quite possibly the easiest but most tedious of the questions in the list. Essentially, the candidate must define 'theory' and compare/contrast the kinds of theory that are developed in 'human' and 'natural' sciences (both of which should also be defined). The analysis should focus on the power of theory to overcome resistance or active opposition, since that is what 'convince' means.
A good starting point in defining theory (in a very general sense) is to just go along the lines of 'a theory is a suggestion that is logically coherent according to the acceptable kinds of reasoning within a given area of knowledge'. Theories generally have at least three objectives — they are designed to describe something, explain something, or predict something. Although theories can be aimed at all three objectives (in theory, haha), a good theory need only achieve one.
An example of the three kinds of theory is this. 'I have an idea of what creativity is...' points at the first kind, a descriptive theory. 'I have an explanation of how (or why) creativity works...' points at the second kind, an explanatory theory. 'I predict that you will see creativity if you...' points at the third kind, a predictive theory. As you can see, this more or less covers the major kinds of theory.
So what makes theories convincing in any discipline? We are convinced in various ways: on a rational level, on an emotional level and so on. The candidate must show that theories in human sciences and natural sciences can overcome opposition in various ways. For example: by appealing to reason (e.g. a logic-based argument or data-based argument that meets the 'rules' of the discipline), or to emotion (e.g. an argument that seems intuitively acceptable because most human respondents have experienced something similar and are hence inclined to be sympathetic).
Clearly, natural sciences (those based on natural history and natural philosophy — physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy etc) have different standards of proof and acceptable content, when compared with human sciences (those based on human interaction and experience — sociology, economics, political science, psychology, anthropology etc). This means that while there are similarities in the kinds of theories produced, the argumentation that supports the theories may have key differences. That is why a compare/contrast approach should work well.
I hope you are convinced.
This is quite possibly the easiest but most tedious of the questions in the list. Essentially, the candidate must define 'theory' and compare/contrast the kinds of theory that are developed in 'human' and 'natural' sciences (both of which should also be defined). The analysis should focus on the power of theory to overcome resistance or active opposition, since that is what 'convince' means.
A good starting point in defining theory (in a very general sense) is to just go along the lines of 'a theory is a suggestion that is logically coherent according to the acceptable kinds of reasoning within a given area of knowledge'. Theories generally have at least three objectives — they are designed to describe something, explain something, or predict something. Although theories can be aimed at all three objectives (in theory, haha), a good theory need only achieve one.
An example of the three kinds of theory is this. 'I have an idea of what creativity is...' points at the first kind, a descriptive theory. 'I have an explanation of how (or why) creativity works...' points at the second kind, an explanatory theory. 'I predict that you will see creativity if you...' points at the third kind, a predictive theory. As you can see, this more or less covers the major kinds of theory.
So what makes theories convincing in any discipline? We are convinced in various ways: on a rational level, on an emotional level and so on. The candidate must show that theories in human sciences and natural sciences can overcome opposition in various ways. For example: by appealing to reason (e.g. a logic-based argument or data-based argument that meets the 'rules' of the discipline), or to emotion (e.g. an argument that seems intuitively acceptable because most human respondents have experienced something similar and are hence inclined to be sympathetic).
Clearly, natural sciences (those based on natural history and natural philosophy — physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy etc) have different standards of proof and acceptable content, when compared with human sciences (those based on human interaction and experience — sociology, economics, political science, psychology, anthropology etc). This means that while there are similarities in the kinds of theories produced, the argumentation that supports the theories may have key differences. That is why a compare/contrast approach should work well.
I hope you are convinced.
Labels: Disciplines, Epistemology, Odd Questions
etched with acid at 10:37:00 am
6 Comments:
i dont understand how emotion could make a theory convincing? is there an example of this somewhere?
There are many examples in daily life. You listen to people talk, they sound articulate and passionate, you believe what they say. You look at a scientific theory, and even though you never did the experiment and don't understand the paper that was published, you 'feel in your gut' that it is correct. And so on. You are convinced, or your belief is enhanced, by your emotions.
(Of course, this is even more true for aesthetic disciplines.)
Remember: emotion is physiological response to stimuli (often sensory) which comes with a change in psychological perspective — in this case, from neutral or disbelief, to belief.
Do you think that it is correct to consider how religious beliefs/theories may affect which theories you chose to trust?
I'm unsure since religious theories are not "theories in the human science" or "theories in the natural science".
rswpl: It is perhaps better to consider why theories in the natural or human sciences might be more convincing to people with certain kinds of religious (or non-religious) backgrounds. You're right in thinking that religious theories per se (theories that are grounded in religious beliefs) are outside this topic; however, theories about religion from the sociological or psychological perspective are theories within the human sciences.
As wok i have used reason and language. What could be a counterclaim for reason ? I do not understand the role of the counterclaim and/or how it is supposed to work with the essay?
Could you please help?
vdy: I have no idea what a counterclaim for reason would be in your case, since I don't know how you are using reason as a way of knowing to construct part of your case here. As to what a counterclaim is, some suggestions can be found in this little post.
Post a Comment
<< Home