Natural Science and Social Science

Research record

The science-duplex map Natural sciences — measurement • experiments • laws • causal structures Social sciences — meaning • institutions • history • agency The basic assertion of this chapter is that the natural sciences and social sciences share a shared epistemological discipline, but not a single universally accepted method. Both areas demand proof, reasons, error-correction, clear definitions, independent scrutiny and public criticism. But in the social sciences, meanings, rules, institutions, agents, histories, values ​​and self-reflective responses are additional dimensions that change the choice of methods. For this reason, a balance is needed between legal unity and legal plurality. Unity in the sense that data cannot be fabricated, conflicting evidence cannot be concealed, causation cannot be founded without explanation, and theory is not exempt from criticism. Plurality in the sense that experiments, surveys, records, interviews, ethnography, historical comparison, statistical analysis, text-reading, field-studies and causal paradigms play a different role for a different question. The subject of the social sciences is the meaningful causal world. Human beings It is subject to reason, but it also explains reason; It stays within the rules, but it can also change the rules; They are shaped by institutions, but they are also reshaped by institutions. For this reason, copying natural law is not enough, and free interpretation is not enough either.

Structured debate

Pūrvapakṣa

First premise: there are few experiments in social science, so it is not a real science. Answer—Experiment is an important tool of science, not the only criterion. Geology, astronomy and evolutionary biology also solve many questions from observation, comparison and historical evidence. Check the claims of the social sciences with their appropriate proofs and error-corrections. Second premise: Man is free, so his causal science is impossible. Answer: Agency is not causality. Desires, rules, resources, information, institutions and history influence action. Freedom itself can be a type of choice within a causal structure. The third premise: meaning is the interpretation of the researcher, so social science is completely subjective. Answer—Semantics can be checked from sources, language, practices, institutional rules, numerous interviews and conflicting evidence. Interpretation can become errorcorrectable. Fourth premise: Social structure is simply the sum of individuals. Answer—Organizations are made up of individuals, but organized rules, positions, authority, and resources create qualities that are not qualities of any single individual. Individual-level and Structure-level relationships must be clarified. Fifth premise: If value enters, objectivity ceases. Answer—values ​​can influence question-choice and policy-goals; However, public examination of data, definitions and causal conclusions is possible. Price hiding is not objectivity; Clarifying the location of values ​​is the more honest method.

Uttarapakṣa

The first answer—the method should follow the object. It is not appropriate to impose the same tools on natural phenomena, human actions, institutions and historical changes. Choose experiments, comparisons, records, statistics or interpretations according to the nature of the question. Second Answer—Write causal and semantic explanations separately, then add them. What caused it and what meaning the agent gave it—these two questions are not interchangeable. The combined answer is a special strength of the social sciences. Third Answer—Explain the bridge between micro and macro levels. Show the process from person-action to institution and from institution to person-action. Loose sentences like society does or individuals choose are not enough. Fourth Answer—Make the measurement origin-series public. How indicators were defined, how data were gathered, how missing values ​​were handled, why categories were created—all of these should be considered part of the findings. Answer Five—Find alternative explanations for causal claims. Causation is incomplete without an examination of reverse causation, hidden factors, selection bias, historical shocks and institutional change.

Parallel conclusion

The correct answer to the relationship between the natural sciences and the social sciences is not both the same method or two completely different worlds of knowledge. The shared scientific discipline is in proof, reason, clarity, reexamination, counterexamples and error-correction. The difference lies in the nature of subjectivity: the social world is meaningful, rule-structured, historical and self-reflexive. For this reason, the social sciences have to link causal explanations to meanings, institutions, and history. Parallel philosophy proposes a division of labor, not an artificial compromise, between the rigorous proof-discipline of naturalism and the semantic-sensory methods of the interpretive tradition. For questions that are causal, check the reasons; Check the meaning of questions that are semantic; For questions that are institutional, check rules and resources; For questions that are historical, check the path; and leave all conclusions open to opposing evidence. The formula of chapter 83: "The natural world gives resistance to reason; the social world gives meaning along with reason. The rigor of science is needed in both, the method will vary according to the subject."

Section index

1. Problem and scope · 11 source passages
2. Central thesis · 4 source passages
3. Major arguments · 20 source passages
4. Pūrvapakṣa · 8 source passages
5. Uttarapakṣa · 8 source passages
6. Indian philosophical dialogue · 6 source passages
7. Mithila’s parallel perspective · 9 source passages
8. Contemporary applications · 10 source passages
9. Chapter conclusion · 3 source passages
10. Chapter bibliography · 44 source passages

Cite this record

Gajendra Thakur. “Natural Science and Social Science.” Videha Digital Research Archive: Mithila–Vajji–Anga. Videha — https://www.videha.co.in/ · ISSN 2229-547X · GitHub mirror: https://videha-ejournal.github.io/videha/ · Digital Research Archives on GitHub: https://github.com/videha-ejournal. https://videha-ejournal.github.io/mithila-vajji-anga/records/idea/philosophy-v2-83/