Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

main post 

The human science tradition is often overlooked or ignored when the word “science” comes up in history or discussion, but has an extensive history of its own, depending on where you start it, at least as early as the late 1800s/early 1900s with Wilhelm Dilthey’s distinction between the natural sciences (Naturalwissenschaften) and the human sciences (Geistewissenschaften).  Even today, the human sciences are called “soft” sciences, privileging the more “hard” natural sciences.  This “politic” of soft and hard, weak and strong thought, has very significant impact on how we care for others and to what we attend.  How could the human scientist argue for an equal place setting at the communion table with the natural scientists today, and where would you address the history of these collision of values and how they became lopsided? 

Student's Response 

There is an ongoing debate between the human and natural sciences with some leaning toward the belief  that the human sciences are far less superior. Proponents of natural sciences believe that the methodology of human sciences is focused on understanding rather that explaining and that human sciences should consider the natural sciences a role model to be integrated into its methodology (Ingthorsson, Rögnvaldur 2013).
Human sciences have been fighting from day one to be taken seriously as a legitimate discipline.  Historically, Human sciences have been the unwanted stepchild and have attempted to gain favor by imitating the “successful” methodology, logic and techniques of the natural sciences, or at best, the archetype (Montuschi ,2008).
The bias makes sense if you consider that science started as a natural science and scientists claimed success by producing findings based on natural facts. This caused the natural sciences to become the gold standard of science.  Because human sciences came later (19th century) they have been trying to gain respect since (Dunn, 2013).
Ingthorsson, Rögnvaldur (2013) believe that human sciences should not try to strive to model natural sciences because human sciences study meaningful experiences that have a different nature than that of the physical experiences studied by natural sciences. As a result, human sciences do not always follow natural laws as natural sciences do. This does not mean human sciences do not consider objective reality in its practice that does not lead to genuine knowledge of the subject.
Researchers in the hard sciences  (natural)believe that the soft sciences (human) do not meet the rigor for meeting clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, controlled experimental conditions, reproductivity, predictability and testability. This is obviously  not the case because soft sciences can be just as rigorous and  help us learn about some important ways the world works. Since they often involve people however, there cannot always be random, controlled environment (Henriques,2016).
Social sciences are a real science because they apply scientific research methods and conduct valid research that has led to insight into cognition, behavior, consciousness and the human condition. It also provides insight into how the world works in ways that natural sciences do not. (Henriques, 2016).
I absolutely believe that human sciences get a seat at the table.  Actually, I think they should be at the head (just kidding, I am being petty).  The same people who think that human  sciences are not valid probably have or are  currently benefitting from them in some form.  When we consider psychotherapy for mental health issues and the therapeutic interventions that help, that is due to research in the social sciences, while natural sciences help discover the medication. If we think about social  problems relevant to society today such as the issues with police violence and the impacts on African Americans, it is human sciences that conduct the studies leading to  the implications . Human sciences have contributed to the body of knowledge in the world that help us learn about the human condition in a way that natural sciences cannot.  Natural sciences contribute to the human condition in a way that social sciences cannot. They are interdependent.  In my opinion, one cannot exist without the other.

Dunn, M (2013). Are human sciences really sciences?  Retrieved from https://theoryofknowledge.net. https://www.theoryofknowledge.net/areas-of-knowledge/the-human-sciences/are-human-sciences-really-scientists/ 

Henriques, G. (2016) The’ Is Psychology a Science Debate’ Psychology Today. Retrieved from: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201601/the-is-psychology-science-debate

Ingthorsson, Rögnvaldur D.. (2013). The natural vs. The human sciences:: myth, methodology and ontology. Discusiones Filosóficas, 14(22), 25-41. Retrieved February 17, 2020, from http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0124-61272013000100003&lng=en&tlng=en.

Montuschi  E. (2008) Should We Still Compare the Social Sciences to the Natural Sciences?  Sociologica (ISSN 1971-8853) Fascicolo 3, novembre-dicembre  doi: 10.2383/28770