KQ: What is it about theories in the human and natural sciences that makes them convincing?
In natural sciences there this thing called the scientific method, that I just learned about. And I think of myself as a rational person, and natural science seems to be more rational because there’s a way to prove all the theories.
This is not how this is supposed to go.
There was a time when I believed in a god, the Christian god in my case, the primary reason was because I was told to. Anyway, I stopped believing in it/him/her. But I understand why a lot of people do.
The thing with human, natural and pseudo sciences is that they are all different forms of beliefs. Human and pseudo sciences go somehow together, because they are both about people and groups of people and how the human mind works and behaves. And even though, most pseudo sciences, if not all, were based on or have some natural science in it, they don’t really relate much. Because (some) pseudo sciences lack the scientific method.
I’m missing the point.
I’m not sure about human sciences, but in natural sciences there’s the scientific method. Where you observe, then develop a hypothesis and then experiment on it, and mostly likely get results and then make a theory. What makes these theories convincing is that there is a way to test it, and not just right there and then but over a longer period of time. Also, if the theory in the future turns out to be wrong or not quite right, scientist change it and learn from it.
What makes theories convincing is more about what people choose to believe in than the theory itself, I guess. Because even though, theories in natural sciences are provable and ‘real’, there are still some people who don’t believe in it.
15 minutes’ up.