AOK Human Sciences

he human sciences aim to describe and explain human behaviour of individuals or members of a group. Although the human sciences comprise a wide range of disciplines such as psychology, social and cultural anthropology, economics, political science and geography, they all have common features such as a shared methodology and the overall object of study: human existence and behaviour. Within TOK, history is not included amongst the human sciences. The object of study of history is quite unique because the past is, well... in the past. Consequently, history uses its own methods to gain knowledge about the (recorded) past.

It is quite fascinating how such a wide range of different disciplines within the human sciences aim to acquire knowledge about human behaviour. What psychology aims to explain is very different from, let's say, economics. This will affect the nuances of the methods, concepts and approaches used by each discipline. Nevertheless, the overarching focus of human sciences lies with knowledge about human existence and behaviour.

The study of human behaviour is complex in nature and it can be approached through different perspectives. Other areas of knowledge, such as the arts, can also offer insights into human behaviour. A novel like 1984 can, for example, give (imaginary) insights into how people behave in (totalitarian) societies. This novel also offers some powerful reflections on the connection between power, language and politics. Performance artists like Abramovic can show how an audience interacts with their art and this might tell us something more about human behaviour. Human scientists, however, aim to acquire this knowledge through a scientific approach. In this sense, there are obvious overlaps with the natural sciences, where we also use the scientific method. Human scientists use observation, collect data, form hypotheses, aim to test the validity of these hypotheses and possibly falsify them. Theories are accepted if they stand the test of time, and rejected if proven wrong. Human scientists may even uncover laws, such as the law of supply and demand in economics.

However, a law in the human sciences does not mean entirely the same thing as a law from the natural sciences. In fact, human scientists face some specific challenges when they apply the scientific method. Firstly, collecting data (through observation) is not that straightforward. Secondly, it is not always easy to falsify and test hypotheses. Finally, bias or hasty generalisations may lead to incorrect knowledge. These problems are not solely confined to the human sciences, but some of them are magnified when we study human behaviour. It would, nevertheless, be foolish to dismiss all knowledge produced by human scientists as "unscientific" or of a lesser quality in se. Good human scientists are aware of these possible pitfalls; they show a critical awareness of the methodology they employ and they use concepts such as "causation" and "certainty" with caution.

How do we use knowledge acquired by the human sciences?

Human behaviour is fascinating. Knowledge regarding this behaviour is interesting on its own, but it can also be very "useful". Knowledge about the principle of "supply and demand" helps us understand how and why transactions on markets take place and how prices are determined. By analysing patterns and studying things such as debt and money supply, economists can (sometimes) predict economic crises.

Insights into psychology can help us deal with emotional difficulties such as depression. Sociological research about gender and status can serve to create more egalitarian societies. All this can ultimately lead to a better, more empathetic world. However, knowledge about human behaviour is not always used for this purpose. It can also be used for selfish motives, to steer and even manipulate people's actions. Companies can use knowledge gathered through market research to influence consumer behaviour, for example. When research into human behaviour is funded by entities that will profit from its findings, the outcome of this research will more than likely be reductionist (the profit aspect) and the methods or purpose may not always be morally sound. We sometimes forget that companies zealously (and rather sneakily) gather information and data regarding our online behaviour.

Access to this data is used to form knowledge about our (online) behaviour. Powerful entities, such as states and advertising companies, may benefit from access to this knowledge. Intelligent machines are incredibly efficient at spotting patterns, from which generalisations regarding human behaviour are created. We increasingly come across claims that face recognition technology and AI can identify and even predict human behaviour. This knowledge can be used to create amazing tools such as a machine that can help predict (and hopefully prevent) suicide.

However, knowledge gathered through and created by AI can be used for discriminatory purposes. If face recognition promises to spot a potential criminal by analysing the features of your face, a potential employer could use such "calculations" against you. In addition to the obvious ethical considerations, we should not forget that the "discovery" of these patterns may not be as neutral, accurate or free from bias as we might think. For example, in 2017 a paper was published about a new algorithm that can allegedly guess with remarkable (better than human) accuracy whether you are gay or straight by analysing your facial features. It seems tempting to think that the findings are neutral because the algorithm as such is not human.

However, human researchers were at the basis of the development of this technology. By leaving out people of colour and making no allowances for transgender and bisexual people, the accuracy of this particular piece of research can be disputed. We can also question how useful or even ethical is it to describe human behaviour through mathematical language. Does apparent "accuracy" come at the price of reductionism? ​Cases such as the one mentioned above, also re-open the age-old nature versus nurture debate. If we accept that the shape of our face (partly) determines our sexual orientation or disposition towards violent behaviour how much free will do we have? Attempts to reduce human behaviour to a "numbers only game", or a "purely biological" matter, have often gone wrong. In short, knowledge about human behaviour can be used for different purposes. When we assess the quality of knowledge in this area, it is important to evaluate who or what was at the source of the knowledge produced and why the knowledge was produced to begin with.

Although there are obvious overlaps between the human and the natural sciences, some special challenges arise in applying the scientific method to the human sciences. The scientific method requires observation, from which we may form a hypothesis. This hypothesis is tested and falsified. The latter often happens through experimentation, although this is not always possible (yet). The observation stage can be quite tricky in the human sciences. Arguably, we can only ever observe the outward manifestations of human behaviour; we have no real objective and direct access to inner thoughts and feelings as such. This makes the situation different from a natural scientist who observes, let's say, the properties of a leaf. MRI's may well give additional information about which parts of the brain react given certain situations or stimuli, but we can never truly get inside a person's mind to figure out what drives his or her behaviour. The very act of observing may also affect the observed. True, this may also be the case in the natural sciences (e.g. the temperature of the thermometer could affect the temperature of an observed liquid), but the effects are sometimes more profound in the human sciences. When people know they are being observed, they may behave differently (think of the behaviour of participants in reality TV shows, for example). Some complex things, such as consciousness or happiness, are also very hard to measure. You may have come across a global happiness index, where countries are ranked according to happiness. But have you ever wondered how we measure happiness? Measuring happiness is very different from how we measure things such as the temperature of a liquid in the natural sciences.

When human scientists have gathered data through observation, they may be able to form a hypothesis, which will then need to be tested. It is not always easy to test the validity of this hypothesis, and both natural as well as human scientists come across obstacles in this area. Nevertheless, assessing the validity of a hypothesis is more difficult within the human sciences. Not all knowledge about human behaviour can be gathered through experimentation within a laboratory style setting (where we can control variables). This is not always desirable nor possible (some behaviours can only be observed in their natural setting). We can never repeat human experiments in exactly the same conditions, if experimentation is at all possible. After all, either the participants will be different, or the same participants will have changed (and have previous knowledge of the experiment). Human scientists may look at the world around them to check if what was predicted by the hypothesis is reflected in reality. However, the very act of predicting (e.g. in economics) may affect the prediction.

In this sense human scientists find it quite difficult to claim with certainty that something is a scientific fact. This is why your psychology teacher may confidently talk about correlation, but less so about causation. Scientific theories (whether natural or human) only survive as long as they stand the test of time. Laws are a little different. In the natural sciences, laws generally speaking do not change over time and they are fairly good at predicting what will happen. Nevertheless, laws in human sciences are not always good at predicting what will happen. In this sense "human sciences usually uncover trends rather than laws" (Lagemaat, 2015).

But does all this mean that knowledge from the human sciences is "of a lesser quality"? Not necessarily. The subject matter of both areas of knowledge is different, so it is not desirable to approach the study of all human behaviour through the exact same methodology as a natural scientist's. Sometimes a natural scientist can offer complementary knowledge that can help explain human behaviour and offer (partial) treatment for things such as depression. However, this may not be possible in other disciplines like economics. The human sciences can explain many things that cannot be explained through other areas of knowledge. In this sense, it would be foolish to reduce the human sciences to only what can be confirmed by the natural sciences merely because we are uncomfortable with the apparent lack of certainty.

How objective can our knowledge about human behaviour be?

How may bias lead to flawed results?

How much evidence is needed before we can make generalisations?

On the whole, scientists aim to be objective because bias can affect the validity of the knowledge they produce. Although it is arguably impossible to be entirely free from bias within the human sciences, it is important to understand where a lack of objectivity may sneak in, and how we can avoid it. A little bit of "personal engagement" can drive the production of knowledge and we sometimes need to use our "self" to interpret the behaviour of others. However, history shows that bias and a lack of awareness of our own perspective can lead to the creation of distorted knowledge.

Human behaviour is difficult to grasp and we may not get to observe this behaviour in its most natural or "neutral" form. The very act of observing may affect what you observe. When cultural anthropologists want to gain knowledge about how communities behave, they may immerse themselves within these communities and "go native". However, their very presence may still affect the way people behave and lead to inaccurate knowledge. In addition, anthropologists may face linguistic difficulties or use their own cultural bias to interpret events, even if this is reduced to a minimum. Something similar happens in psychology. When people actively take part in an experiment, they often behave differently. Clever psychologists and sociologists may devise techniques to disguise the purpose of their experiments. They "trick" participants into thinking they are being tested on something else than what appears to be the case. This may help them come up with more accurate results. An experimental approach to the study of human behaviour can lead to the production of sound and reasonably objective knowledge. This can be illustrated with behavioural economics. Economist Vernon Smith, for example "developed a methodology that allowed researchers to examine the effect of policy changes before they are implemented" (Investopedia.com). There are many aspects of human behaviour, however, that cannot be researched via controlled experiments (where we can control the variables and measure more accurately). These aspects can only be observed in a real-life setting, with less or even no control of variables. There may also be a discrepancy between findings observed in a controlled environment and real life applications. Human behaviour is complex and dependent on numerous factors that may not have been accounted for previously.

When we observe human behaviour, we will always observe a small segment of people. From this, we may conclude things about the larger population. Such hasty generalisations may lead to false conclusions. We could conclude things based on a sample section that is really too small, or we may form inaccurate conclusions about other communities based on our own values and behaviours. This is exacerbated by the fact that we cannot always "test" our hypothesis or repeat experiments to falsify previous hypotheses. Bias can also an issue within the natural sciences, but in some cases less so because experimentation may be easier and there is less need to consider things such as values and culture when we produce knowledge in the human sciences.