Less Dependence on the Scientific Method

Natural sciences rigorously adhere to the established scientific method to uphold methodological integrity. Through observational studies and controlled experiments, they test hypotheses by manipulating isolated variables. Conversely, social scientists often deviate from traditional scientific methods due to ethical considerations and the complexities of human behaviors. For instance, tightly controlled lab experiments frequently fail to encapsulate the intricacies of real-world scenarios, while random assignment of human subjects overlooks individual differences. Social researchers may depend more on surveys, archival research, ethnographic studies, and qualitative observations, which may lack the rigor and controls found in formal experiments.

Lower Capacity to Isolate Variables

In social sciences, the intricacies of psychology and group dynamics are influenced by numerous interrelated factors, making it challenging to isolate specific variables. While natural sciences can effectively manipulate one or a few discrete variables during repeated controlled trials, the multitude of influences affecting human behavior and societal interactions cannot be so easily disentangled. For example, examining the effects of peer pressure necessitates accounting for complicating factors such as prior relationships and individual personality traits.

The first video, "Differences between Natural and Social Sciences" by Andrew Wernette, delves into these distinctions, highlighting the unique challenges faced by social scientists.

Less Ability to Establish Causality

Due to the difficulty in isolating variables, social sciences often find it challenging to establish clear causal relationships. While correlation studies may identify connections, they do not confirm causation. For instance, while wealth and health are correlated, it remains uncertain which factor influences the other. In contrast, hard sciences confirm causality through controlled experiments that isolate the effects of individual elements. Human behaviors, however, arise from an intricate web of factors, many of which are not easily observable, complicating the reduction of human interactions into simple cause-and-effect relationships.

Lower Predictability and Consistency

The theories in social sciences do not yield the same level of predictive precision found in physics or chemistry. Human society is characterized by its inherent unpredictability and contextual variability. While psychological and sociological theories can suggest possible outcomes, they often require ongoing adjustments. In contrast, natural laws remain consistent; for example, the boiling point of water does not change under fixed conditions. Generalizations about human behavior or cultural dynamics must account for individual and situational differences, leading to less certainty in social predictions.

Is "Objective Truth" Achievable?

A significant debate within social sciences revolves around the existence of universal social truths independent of human interpretation. Can fields that study inherently subjective experiences achieve complete objectivity? Cultural norms and unconscious biases can distort interpretations of social behaviors. While natural sciences strive for objective truths through meticulous methodologies that control for subjectivity, social sciences contend that social realities are inherently tied to the fluid perceptions of individuals. As such, no universal social laws exist outside the subjective processes of meaning-making.

Multitude of Theories and Frameworks

Within each social science discipline, a plethora of theoretical perspectives exists, with scholars often debating the relative merits of different frameworks. For instance, there are numerous competing theories that seek to explain aspects of human development, intelligence, psychological disorders, or social structures. In contrast, hard sciences tend to converge around unified paradigms, such as natural selection in biology or plate tectonics in geology. While the diversity of theories in social sciences fosters innovation, it also leads to fragmentation and contradictions, making it challenging to establish definitive, universally accepted principles comparable to natural laws.

Focus on Description Rather Than Prescription

Natural sciences concentrate on articulating unchanging laws of nature, while social sciences prioritize descriptive analysis of trends and patterns. They offer frameworks for understanding various human phenomena rather than prescribing absolute truths. For instance, sociologists may describe the diverse structures and values of families across cultures, while geographers examine the forces influencing settlement patterns. This approach favors illuminating the complexity of contexts, experiences, and perspectives inherent across human groups over making universal judgments.

Interdisciplinary Integration is Essential

Success in natural sciences often requires deep immersion in that specific knowledge system. In contrast, social sciences necessitate synthesizing insights from various fields, including philosophy, history, statistics, and neuroscience, to grasp complex human realities. For example, political science incorporates frameworks from economics, sociology, anthropology, and psychology to understand multifaceted policy issues. Social phenomena result from layered cultural, historical, and environmental influences that are not easily isolated, thus underscoring the importance of interdisciplinary integration in building a comprehensive understanding.

Greater Reliance on Qualitative Methods

While natural sciences prioritize quantitative empirical data, social inquiries often emphasize qualitative material for richer descriptions. Methods such as interviews, ethnographic observations, focus groups, literature reviews, and historical analyses capture the nuanced contexts that shape societies and individuals—insights that statistics alone may overlook. Quantitative methods in social science serve to test theories and reveal generalizable patterns, while qualitative approaches illuminate the lived experiences behind broad numerical trends. A comprehensive interpretation of society requires an integration of human narratives and meanings alongside objective data.

Vast Diversity Within the Human Species

Human beings exhibit remarkable behavioral diversity shaped by a variety of environments and cultural contexts. This individuality introduces another layer of complexity, meaning that insights gained from social science research may not apply uniformly across different populations and settings. In contrast, the laws of physics and chemical reactions maintain consistency regardless of their source. The inherent diversity of human experiences restricts the transferability of social science theories across various communities, highlighting the importance of contextual relevance.

In conclusion, while social sciences represent a systematic empirical pursuit in their own right, the intricate nature of human behavior necessitates a creative adaptation and combination of rigorous methodologies, rather than merely adhering to traditional natural science protocols. A holistic understanding of collective social realities emerges from a blend of qualitative, quantitative, and integrative approaches.

The second video, "Natural Sciences vs Social Sciences: What's the difference?" provides further insights into the distinctions and overlaps between these fields.