In nothing seriously stood in the way of the

In our past week of reading articles about the finding the Steele have made or even about the replication crisis, I believe that the area of human science still operates under a structure and have a systematic study. Certainly, it would be hard to say that the answers offered in any of the areas under the human science are as ‘hard’ as in, say, maths and the natural sciences. Natural science focuses on the study of the nature and involves experiments and theories.  Chemistry, physics, biology are examples of some of the study areas of natural science. On the other hand, human science is more about the behavior, and is more abstract. Many believe that the natural sciences may, and perhaps should, serve as a model for any attempt at comparable human sciences. Indeed, at the time of the Enlightenment it was widely held that nothing seriously stood in the way of the extension of scientific method to human matters, although there was disagreement over how to carry out the assignment. If we judge human science along these lines – offering incomplete theories which are then built on by the next generation of researchers, we see that it is the process that is important, rather than the results that they find out. Indeed, this follows in the great tradition of Socrates, who said that it was the asking of questions that revealed truth, rather than the answering of them.There is no set approach to studying the randomness that are the human mind and human behavior. Sometimes, we have to be set with qualitative questions and approaches that, while reliable and valid and experimentally sound, do not lend themselves to an easy consistent practice or a narrative that has a base in hard science or concrete math and statistics. Reading the article by Claude M. Steele about the “Stereotype Threat” I was able to see how the test taking in humans sciences are not neat and tidy. By this i mean that just like in our discussion multiple people stated how no one can predict what someone is thinking and how an answer for a single question will differ for every individual in this planet.The tools of mathematical and statistical and scientific analysis are invaluable. But their quantifiable certainty is all too easy to see as the only “real” way of doing things when really. I argue that the human sciences should not try to imitate the methodology of the natural sciences.  It’s hard to quantify and to have precise conclusions when you deal with qualitative phenomena. Connecting to the part on replication crisis where the tendency to still quantify the ideas just like natural sciences can do. We can see this in the studies that we have analysed in class. The article by Claude M. Steele and the podcast we have listened to brings questions that we revolve our argument around. With the tricky parts where we may not be able to fully understand the question I can still understand from a broad picture that human sciences are very different from natural sciences in different levels.