Theory Of Knowledge Question 5. 1 Sonya H.

Gazvani, 3i 000598-015 , dkw352

What is it about theories in the human sciences and natural sciences that makes them convincing?
Until the 17th century people believed in the theory of the Earth being flat. This theory was ruined by Magellan who demonstrated that the earth is not flat but round by circumnavigating the spherical Earth. This makes people think, then how can we believe the theories the scientists come up with? What is about the theories in human and natural science that makes them convincing? The two areas of knowledge differ with their results and consequences, and how they convince people. How do they differ from each other when it comes to convincing? To what extend do we rely on these scientific theories? Before starting I will define some key terms which will be used in this essay. Theory in science can be described as general suggestions which are tested and considered to be correct. In other words, theory must be built upon a hypothesis and be supported by evidence which is rational with the current knowledge. Convincing is another considerable concept which is been used in the title of this essay. A convincing theory can be described as an idea which has successfully persuaded others to believe it through argument and evidence. Yet, scientific theories are not always trust worthy. This is because sciences, such as natural scientific theories, do not always have a perfect result, so they are never completely right, and therefore can be misrepresented. But then again, when natural science theories cannot even be taken for granted how do they manage to convince us people? The reason for this could be that we as humans put our confidence into the work that the scientists make, because they use the scientific method which we rely on. This is because scientific methods that the scientists develop their theories come from observations that have reliable results, which can always be repeated again. Not only one but many scientists work on these theories and when they end up with the same results, they open it up into the world. In Biology, we come across several theories; one of them is the cell theory. Scientists started to look up the structure of the cells when they discovered that all living organisms were made up of small cells. For a period of time, the scientists thought that cells were arise from non-living materials, but later on it was proven that this was not the case, and

Theory Of Knowledge Question 5. 2 Sonya H. Gazvani, 3i 000598-015 , dkw352

that the cells came from pre-existing cells. In class we made an experiment to prove this, where they all demonstrated the same results; Out of two containers with food pieces in them, the one would stay open and the other one would be closed. After a couple of days, the closed container would have no mold developed, but the food in the open container started to grow mold out. This shows that due to the cover on one of the containers no cells were able to enter so no mold was to develop. This proves that cells do not arise from non-living materials. Though, this is a simplified version of the matter, it displays one of the stabilities of the scientific method and theories that result from them. By repeating the experiments and getting the same results, the theory becomes reliable and therefore we put our confidence in them. However, while natural sciences are convincing through the results of experiments human sciences do not work the same way. Since human sciences theories depend on the behavior of the people, they cannot be counted to act the same way for certain situations. For example, in biology we know that Photosynthesis is a process by which plants use sunlight, carbon dioxide and water to produce carbohydrates and oxygen, but the same cannot be said for human sciences. This is because when a group of people - also called human societies- gather; react differently in different situations, even if they are under the same circumstances. Though, because it is human science it is sometimes not even possible to make experiments. An economist, who has come up with a theory as to how the population would react to a financial crisis, cannot prove his hypothesis by simply fail the markets in order to get the results he had come up with. Human science theories are not always able to be proven and predict how the humans will act in individual cases, just like in natural science. So while we tend to believe in the theories of natural science because of the repeated results, in human science we put our emphasis on inferences out of the observations which are made. But this doesnt mean that human science theories convincing? Then what makes human science theories convincing? When it comes convincing in human science, emotions are introduced. The effect of emotions and instincts has a major role convincing a theory. As human beings we tend to know things and therefore when there are options in front of us, we analyze them in order to evaluate if the theory is true or not. In other words, humans evaluate theories of individual experiences, where the individual feel whats right or wrong. For example in economics, when the government raises

Theory Of Knowledge Question 5. 3 Sonya H. Gazvani, 3i 000598-015 , dkw352

the taxes, from personal experience we would automatically save money since there is a lower income. So we can easily see that we are convinced in the theory of economics when raising taxes by predicting how we would act individually. The type of convincing is undoubtedly less common in the natural science where there is less personal experiences available, and therefore cannot judge the theories of natural sciences. For example the previous example of the cell theory in natural sciences, we are not able to feel that it is correct, but we can judge it by analyzing it and try to see the logic in it. So we see that the human sciences attempt to predict and describe human behavior, people might accept a theory that combines with what they feel is correct. Then again, humans cannot always predict what would happen in the future and how people would behave in certain situations through their own individual experiences. When for example macroeconomic theories in human sciences are discussed, every individual does not have the same knowledge to evaluate what the behavior of humans would be through their own personal tests. Although the reasonable nature of sciences convinces us we should again be doubtful. There can never be a specific conclusion in these sciences, and therefore they are open to discussions. No matter how the authority introduces us for these theories we as humans should consider if it actually should be accepted as a truth. Though, individuals think they are rational with their thoughts and have enough lack of knowledge to evaluate the theories, the majority of humans do not pass the adequate knowledge that is required to make such evaluations. As humans, the position of thinking that we understand a theory or idea more than we do, makes the people automatically believe in theories and therefore easily be convinced both in human and natural sciences. This is because we place faith in the authority and trust these scientists to come up with correct results and conclusion. The authority introduces statements in natural and human sciences that humans dont know much about. In fact, the majority of people, the less they know the more they believe in what they hear. As a conclusion, in natural sciences, humans just need to either trust the scientific authorities, or decide not to (along with general cultural faith in the scientific method and reliability of hard data) means that people find statements from authorities very convincing. This is again because they do not have enough background knowledge to decide for themselves whether or not something is true, and therefore the theories coming from an authority figure convinces them. Humans can be

Theory Of Knowledge Question 5. 4 Sonya H. Gazvani, 3i 000598-015 , dkw352

influenced easily by the nature of these theories and in their ability to convince us with the predictable and repeatable results that they come up with, where we see the power of strength of the scientific method in the development of theories. Then again, the majority of people have trusted so much to the authority that they do not have the slightest doubtfulness against the theories that they come up with in human and natural sciences. Naturally as humans we think we know more and understand these theories then we actually do, but in reality we simply just rely on the authority and scientists to tell us if the theory is convincing.