Since the onset of the Scientific Revolution, the western world has valued scientific progress over any other, seemingly placing scientific theories and scientist leaders on a pedestal above their contemporaries in ‘lesser’ sectors of society such as governmental or business leaders. This begs the question: why are the sciences and the theories they dispel generally held in such a greater regard? How, and with what results and consequences, do these two areas of knowledge utilize methods such as observation, collection of empirical evidence, and generally the scientific method, in the construction of theories? Key differences in the ways that these two areas of knowledge arrive at their conclusions also lead to differences in the ways that they convince others. How do they differ in this aspect? Ultimately, to what extent can we rely on the scientific method in the construction of accurate, consistent, and ‘convincing’ theories?
Before beginning, I will first clarify the definitions of some key terms in the title. The criterion that constitutes something to be a theory in the sciences is that it must be an idea or assertion that is descriptive, explanatory, and/or predictive in nature. It is built around hypotheses that are supported with evidence, and that corresponds to and is coherent with current knowledge. Most importantly, theories in the sciences must, by nature, be able to be falsified. In this way, theories by definition can never be proven completely right; at best they can stay untouched by arguments of the opposition. It is this nature of theories that this essay is concerned with. Another area of contention where definition is concerned is the word ‘convincing’. A convincing theory will be defined as one that can overcome opposition and successfully persuade others to believe it.
As we all know, scientific theories are not infallible. Why are certain theories so convincing that people have begun to take them for granted as being true? One reason is that we put our confidence in the scientific method that scientists utilize to develop their theories and conclusions. The scientific method for the natural sciences relies the most on reasoning as the way of knowing. This method attempts to test observations and have reliable and reproducible results, a process in which many participate in and improve upon with the aim of describing the world in an objective manner. In chemistry, we have come across several theories, one of them being the collision theory, which provides a qualitative explanation as to why chemical reactions occur, and why reaction rates differ for multiple reactions. Empirical experiments performed by the class all demonstrated the same results; as the concentration of the reactants increased, so did the rate of reaction. Though this is admittedly an extremely simplified view on the matter, it demonstrates one of the strengths of the scientific method and the theories that result from them: repeated trials will all produce the same results, with each successful trial strengthening the theory even more. In this way, theories in natural sciences are convincing because of the nature in which the theories come about: the scientific method.
While theories in natural sciences are convincing when results of experiments or investigations are consistent and in agreement over time, theories in human sciences naturally cannot base their theories on this as humans (the subject matter) cannot be counted on to act the same way; water can always be expected to boil at one hundred degrees under the same conditions; the same cannot be said for human beings or human societies, even when they are put in the same circumstances. Furthermore, in some cases even experiments are not possible. An economist who has developed a hypothesis as to how a population reacts to a financial crisis can not simply declare a massive market crash to try to verify it. The inherent differences between the natural and human sciences run deeper still. Because of the aforementioned limitations, there is no way a theory in human sciences can aim to describe or predict what will happen exactly in every individual case, as it is in the natural sciences. Instead, theories in the human sciences aim to identify general patterns in the behavior of societies and individuals. So while a basis for a sustainable theory in the natural sciences calls for a general consensus as well as the preciseness of results, the basis for the acceptance of theories in the human sciences seem to put more emphasis on inferences based off observations, with caution towards any conclusions that are drawn that aren’t based directly off the observations made. Evidently, theories in human sciences do not rely on reproducibility or consistency of results as much when it comes to how convincing the theory is.
What is it then, about theories in the human sciences that can make them convincing? It is here that intuition as a way of knowing comes into play. The effect of emotion and intuition is present when discussing how convincing a theory is, regardless of whether the presenters of the theory meant to or not. As knowers, we tend to scrutinize ideas put before us; one such method of scrutiny would be evaluating whether or not a certain theory is true (although we’ve established that theories cannot be proven true, we can assume that the most convincing theories are the ones most likely to be true). Tests of consensus, correspondence, and to a certain extent, pragmatism, can be applied to theories in both natural and human sciences. It is when the coherence test comes up that theories in human sciences demonstrate the upper hand in its degree of convincingness. As theories in human sciences attempt to describe or predict human behavior, people might more readily accept theories that match up with what they intuitively feel to be correct, or in other words, passes their own personal coherence tests about how humans act in certain situations. For example, although I have a very limited knowledge of psychology, the theory of cognitive dissonance for me, is already intuitively convincing because in my few short minutes ‘researching’ the topic on wikipedia, I was able to relate to the provided example of “buyer’s remorse.” This type of convincing is undoubtedly less common in the natural sciences where it is less likely that people have had personal experiences with the subject matter and hence cannot make these intuitive judgments on theories. Following the previous example, one cannot be partial to “feel” that the cell theory is correct, at least in the sense of whether or not that information is ‘common sense’ to us, because we do not live in a microscopic world.
These conclusions are open to contention: the previous assumes that theories in the human sciences can be related to us as individuals, but obviously this is not always the case. When presented with large-scale economic theories or such, most individuals do not have the sufficient knowledge to evaluate this using their own coherence tests. The claim that the rational and reasonable nature of the scientific method is what convinces us the most of theories in natural science can also be questioned. What of these theories? The role of authority and the way a theory is presented in determining the convincing nature of theories, not just in the human sciences but also the natural sciences, must be considered. While we would like to believe that we are completely rational in our thinking and our evaluation of knowledge, the fact is that most normal individuals do not possess the sufficient background knowledge required to make such evaluations. While we may fool ourselves into thinking that we are convinced purely on a rational basis, in reality, we are simply putting our faith in the members of the scientific field to make these evaluations for us. The susceptibility of our brains to this is evident in the study done by Weisberg and colleagues, which found that adding a line of “neurobabble” (neurological jargon used inaccurately and meaninglessly) to a scientific conclusion made people to find it more convincing. The effect increased when said findings were released with pictures of the brain. Our penchant for thinking that we understand more about a topic than we really do evidently leads us to accept inaccurate findings from “respectable” scientists. This suggest that at times, we are convinced by theories in he human and natural sciences because we place faith in authority figures in these areas to make the correct conclusions, and not because of any sort of evaluation on the part of the average individual.
The convincing nature of theories in the natural sciences and the human sciences can be explained through several methods. It would be unfair to dismiss the influence of the rational nature of these theories in their ability to convince us- the predictability and consistency of results in certain theories showcase the strengths of the scientific method in the development of theories. But to the average knower who is unrelated to the fields of science, this belief in the scientific method is undoubtedly tied to our tendency to think that we understand more about these theories than we actually do, when in fact, we are simply placing our trust in scientific figures to tell us what is convincing or not.
“Neurobabble” study: Weisberg, D., Keil, F., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E. & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 470–477.
I’m not sure if the use of ‘dispel’ in the opening paragraph is appropriate.
Excellent knower’s perspective and quality, varied examples.
Your individual style and structure manage to successfully capture the claim/counter-claim/evaluation process well without having to be explicit. The argument flows naturally, and leads into your well-crafted conclusion.
Your analysis could run a little deeper by looking at more complex examples, but your basic ideas are well supported. One thing you don’t address in your essay is the idea that to many people theories in the sciences are not that convincing at all. Considering these perspectives would allow you to demonstrate a cross-cultural knower’s perspective and acknolwedge that scientific theories are more or less convincing depending on individual and cultural identities.
Grade: A-