De Pena, R.

IDS802- Homework 2- February 2, 2015, Page 1 of 7

Natural vs. Social Sciences

Differences, Similarities, and Implications

Before I begin to compare these two important categories within science derived from the
assigned readings, I believe it is important to refer to Natural Sciences as those that have a series
of attributes including but not limited to numerical constancy, constancy of recurrent events, and
verifiability. As examples of these disciplines, we have physics, chemistry, and astronomy.
These disciplines are also known as physical sciences.
Conversely, the other category is Social or Behavioral Sciences, which follow certain
similarities to Natural Sciences but offer clear distinctions that I will attempt to point out as I
develop this essay. Among the social sciences, it is worth mentioning sociology, psychology,
anthropology, and to my surprise, economics. I honestly thought the latter fell under the
scientific disciplines until I learned interesting justifications for its proper assigned category. In
order to have a clearer picture of the two concepts, I thought it is important to list additional
characteristics involving the two, as follows:
1. Natural Sciences
These disciplines are fundamentally based on observations that are objective,
constant, and invariable; they formulate demonstrable hypotheses, the phenomena they
study have to be quantifiable, and their findings tend to be accurate. Additionally, natural
sciences are associated with constant numerical values, and predictability of future
phenomena. It is important to mention, however, that one can find some of these
attributes in the social sciences as well. It is important to recognize that natural sciences
have the advantage of the lab for research to prove or disprove hypothesis on physical

De Pena, R. IDS802- Homework 2- February 2, 2015, Page 2 of 7

phenomena that occur in the real world. However, there seems to be a consensus that
these conclusions, for the most part, are approximations to such reality. For example,
How far will a missile of this shape travel with this propellant? We cannot tell
accurately from experiments with scale models because we cannot scale down the size of
air molecules or the critical mass of the propellant (Scriven, p. 74)

2. Social Sciences
These disciplines are more concerned with human values and their overall effects
in society. Nonetheless, establishing an objective, verifiable theory for human behavior,
whether in restrained or choice-related conditions, has been extremely difficult for
scientists within many, if not most social disciplines. In using the missile example that I
quoted from Scriven above, a social scientist would not be able to approximate even a
prediction because of the greater amount of variables he/she has to consider and the
inability to run repeatable test at full-scale level.

For this reason, within the classification of Social/Behavioral Sciences, there

seems to be a consensus about two distinct views: A) a naturalistic perspective that
contends that social science and natural science has no significant differences and B) a
humanistic view that sustains that it is practically impossible for social phenomena to be
adequately studied from a scientific perspective.

Nonetheless, it has been argued that more research needs to be done to come up
with a better concept of the Social Science construct. The rationale for that conclusion is

De Pena, R. IDS802- Homework 2- February 2, 2015, Page 3 of 7

that neither the naturalistic nor the humanistic views are capable of answering three
fundamental questions for the science of behavior: first, What is the relationship
between interpretation and explanation in social science? second, What is the nature of
social scientific theory? and third, What is the role of critique? (Fay & Moon, p. 21)
Broadly speaking, these questions arise because of the conjunction of two
important
Features of social science. In the first place, these sciences are social, which is to
say that the phenomena they study are intentional phenomena, and so must be
identified in terms of their meanings. Secondly, these sciences are sciences, in the
sense that they try to develop systematic theories to explain the underlying causal
interconnections among phenomena of a widely divergent sort. Because they each
fasten on only one of these features, humanism and naturalism fail to provide
adequate account of social science (ibid, p. 33).
Now, how can we best articulate the differences and similarities between Natural
Sciences and Social Sciences in light of attributes discussed above?
Invariable or unchangeable observation, which states that science cannot be trusted
unless it produces replicable phenomena. As far as invariance is concerned, Natural Sciences
seems to have an edge over Social Sciences. The difference is because the first only requires
fewer replicable phenomena to explain a physical fact or prediction.
Objectivity of observations, which implies that the phenomenon must be detached from
subjective, personal biases, is fundamental for naturalist scientists. While it is true that
observations and explanations mostly derive from subjective values for the social scientist that
does not necessarily erode the objectivity of their research.

De Pena, R. IDS802- Homework 2- February 2, 2015, Page 4 of 7

Demonstrability of hypotheses, which is fundamental for the natural scientist, is

problematic for social scientists. The reason they have such a degree of difficulty in verifying
hypotheses is due not only to the impossibility for these social scientists to conduct experiments
in a controlled (laboratory) setting, but also to the extent these scientists have to deal with a
greater number of variables than their naturalist counterparts.
Accuracy of findings, the notion that conclusions must be exact, there is similarity in both
Natural and Social Sciences, particularly in physics and in economics, but you cannot find as
much exactness in the other disciplines within both scientific classifications.
Quantifiability of phenomena, which is the ability to accurately measure occurrences,
does not seem to occur in every discipline of natural sciences other than Physics. The same can
be said of the social sciences in general.
Predictability of future phenomena, the notion of future event replicability, research has
demonstrated virtually no significant differences between natural and social sciences, if we
compare apple to apples. In other words, this conclusion is true only if natural science conducts
its experiments within the real world, not within a controlled environment. Why is it so
important to make this clarification? Because
Some people are inclined to believe that the natural sciences can beat the social
sciences on any count, in unconditional predictions as well as conditional
predictions []. But what they have in mind are the laboratory experiments of the
natural sciences, in which predictions have proved so eminently successful; and
they look at the poor record social scientists have had in predicting future events
in the social world which they observe but cannot control. This comparison is

De Pena, R. IDS802- Homework 2- February 2, 2015, Page 5 of 7

unfair and unreasonable. The artificial laboratory world in which the experimenter
tries to control all conditions as best as he can is different from the real world of
nature. If a comparison is make, it must be between predictions of events in the
real natural world and in the real social world (Machlup, p. 13).
Numerical constancy, or the notion of unchanging numbers to denote measureable
unchanging correlations between phenomena, is a key characteristic of disciplines within the
natural sciences, particularly physics. This characteristic is something that social sciences
completely lack.
Conclusion
While the Natural vs. Social Science debate will likely continue for generations to come,
the evidence presented suggests that both natural and social sciences have similarities and
differences. While one cannot absolutely conclude that Natural Science in intrinsically superior,
of all the attributes presented, the ones that seem to give natural sciences an edge over social
sciences are those related to invariance, verifiability, and numerical constant. This has given the
perception that natural sciences are superior to social sciences. However, it has been
demonstrated that these differences should not be considered as social science defects that ought
to be corrected. Rather, they should be embraced as part of the nature of social phenomena in
light of limitations presented in light of the advantage that controlled environments and fewer
variables provide to the natural sciences.
The latter also have a number of limitations, including but not limited to the fact that they
cannot be prescriptive to prevention or solution of matters pertaining to human behavior, as they
are exclusive prerogative of the social sciences.

De Pena, R. IDS802- Homework 2- February 2, 2015, Page 6 of 7

The implication for researches on both side of the aisle is to continue to find ways to
work together and complement each other toward scientific breakthroughs of categorical and/or

De Pena, R. IDS802- Homework 2- February 2, 2015, Page 7 of 7

References
Fay, B., & Moon, D.J. (1994). What would an adequate philosophy of social science look like?
In M. Martin & L.C. McIntyre (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of social science (pp.
21-35. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Bradford
Machlup, F. (1994). Are the social sciences really inferior? In M. Martin & L.C. McIntyre
(Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of social science (pp. 5-19). Massachusetts Institute of
Technology: Bradford
Scriven, M. (1994). A possible distinction between traditional scientific disciplines and the
study of human behavior. In M. Martin & L.C. McIntyre (Eds.), Readings in the
philosophy of social science (pp. 71-77). Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
Bradford