#5: What is it about theories of human science and natural science that makes them conving?

[Nhu]

Human science include psychology, sociology

Natural science = bio

[CkyBlue]

Well I am not going to give you points for your essay, but here are my thoughts in general.

Well this is just me, but I believe that anything "science" is more driven by logic and reason based on trends, rules and experimentation. I am not a TOK student yet, but I would find it hard to argue anything against logic. Logic is often found in the presence of a good argument, and people will willingly submit and agree to it. On the other hand, the other ways of knowing such as faith, emotion, instinct have massive limitations as they as driven by personal experience and bias.

[Nhu]

In my opinion, what really defines "convincing", and how do we know if "convincing" is more based towards opinion rather than solid facts. Remember, some theories can be tested and given solid evidence, while others cannot. Theories are more based on logic for reality. To test a theory, one must plan out an experiment. Experiments are processes that can MEASURE, thus, having solid proof. For example, in natural science, scientists have actual proof that plants breathe in CO2 and give out oxygen, whereas in human science, scientists cannot measure "crazy" or the level of insanity of a person. They can only observe and make notes, thus leading to theories.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Nhu

[CkyBlue]

Yes, I do agree (with your 2nd sentence). But everyone has their own standard in what is convincing and what is not.

IMO Something is convincing because we cannot argue with facts. But whether or not we can see something AS convincing based on opinion is another case, which I think relates to your essay. You can discuss the scope and limitations on a person's way of knowing if something is convincing.

In regards to theories, people would still believe they are convincing, as they are still logic-based with or without evidence. Opinions, I believe fall way behind. Theories can be tested through experimentation, and if they follow a long-term trend that has persisted the day they were made, it turns into a theorem.

Example. Pythagorean theorem.

No one has been able to prove that every right-angled triangle follows a^2+b^2=c^2, but I am convinced it is true because of the trend, and to this day all right angle triangle questions regarding Pythagorean theorem have been true so far. It is not a law, or a rule but a theorem, and even though there's no proof, the long term knowledge of a correct trend is convincing enough that we are able to freely use it in our math class to solve these problems.

[dessskris]

Example. Pythagorean theorem.

No one has been able to prove that every right-angled triangle follows a^2+b^2=c^2, but I am convinced it is true because of the trend, and to this day all right angle triangle questions regarding Pythagorean theorem have been true so far. It is not a law, or a rule but a theorem, and even though there's no proof, the long term knowledge of a correct trend is convincing enough that we are able to freely use it in our math class to solve these problems.

there are general proofs though and I believe those proofs to be true. however there is a big assumption in maths: that algebra is correct. this is the one assumption that you may question behind the pythagorean theorem. but then, once algebra is proven to be wrong, the world will collapse. I think mathematical proofs are convincing.

do you know how knowledge in maths are classified btw? there are lemma, theorem, proposition, conjecture, etc and they're classified based on the existence of a reliable formal proof. so e.g. you can't completely trust a lemma because it hasn't been proven yet.

[CkyBlue]

Example. Pythagorean theorem.

No one has been able to prove that every right-angled triangle follows a^2+b^2=c^2, but I am convinced it is true because of the trend, and to this day all right angle triangle questions regarding Pythagorean theorem have been true so far. It is not a law, or a rule but a theorem, and even though there's no proof, the long term knowledge of a correct trend is convincing enough that we are able to freely use it in our math class to solve these problems.

there are general proofs though and I believe those proofs to be true. however there is a big assumption in maths: that algebra is correct. this is the one assumption that you may question behind the pythagorean theorem. but then, once algebra is proven to be wrong, the world will collapse. I think mathematical proofs are convincing.

do you know how knowledge in maths are classified btw? there are lemma, theorem, proposition, conjecture, etc and they're classified based on the existence of a reliable formal proof. so e.g. you can't completely trust a lemma because it hasn't been proven yet.

What is a lemma?

Yes, I know we cannot completely trust them, but we are so often using them they become a social tool as an adequate enough truth. We are not going to manually measure the hypotenuse of a triangle in higher classed engineering.

Sometimes in algebra, we must considered the ethics of the problem, such as when we carry out the two answers of the quadratic formula. There is no such thing as negative height or time, for example.

[TurtleR]

"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." - Albert Einstein.

I think that we find the sciences so convincing because as Einstein said, it's just a refinement of everyday thinking.

In science, a big part of it is categorizing observations and creating our own system of organizing it all. Once we have managed to express them through literature, they can now be accessed and understood more easily than just tables of data, or observations. This is the refinement part.

Some people may not find it convincing, They question "what makes it a fact" or "what makes it true". That's another aspect of everyday thinking, not everyone agrees, or thinks, the same way.