What is the difference between natural sciences and human sciences?  First of all, what are the definitions for these two areas of knowledge?

Natural science focuses on the study of the nature and involves experiments and theories.  Chemistry, physics, biology are examples of some of the study areas of natural science.  They are very logic, and are usually supported with evidence and reason.  Experiments can be done in either at small or large scale.  They could be simple lab experiments at school to a chemical synthesis in an industry.

On the other hand, human science is more about the behavior, and is more abstract.  Psychology, economics, and anthropology are some examples.  Compared with natural sciences, this involves more thought and emotion.  Unlike natural science, there is no correct answer, so it is difficult to do an experiment.  However, conclusions can be drawn out from testing a large number of people and looking at what the majority has shown.

To decide which is better we must first decide on the criteria with which to judge them. As they both claim to be sciences so perhaps the best way to judge is to see which most expands our collective or shared knowledge. From this perspective it becomes clear of the natural sciences superiority, not only are the subjects studied broader thus giving a much wider array of new knowledge but are also much more reliable as a source for this new knowledge. This all comes back to the fact of repeatability which is much more prevalent in the natural sciences which thus allows a scientific consensus or paradigm to be reached. While it may be argued that this new paradigm isn’t the truth itself it’s undeniable that at the very least that the truth is closer than it was before. The same can’t be said for the human sciences and that is why the natural sciences is superior.

Thomas Kuhn – A physicist, historian but is probably known best as a philosopher of science through his publication of “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” in 1962 and in it he first coined the term of ‘Normal Science’ and that is the subject of this post.

Before Normal Science can be explained you must first understand that Kuhn believes science operates along paradigms. A paradigm is simply the framework under which science can operate, simply think of the big science facts you remember, the heliocentric model, gravity or germ theory. From there Kuhn believes that the next important step is that anomalies are found in these paradigms, just as happened to ones before them, but before that can happen most scientists will just work under the existing paradigm, solving problems, ‘doing busy-work’ as Kuhn puts it.

This quote really sums up Kuhn’s view on normal science, he saw it as, at least in comparison to work on a new paradigm, useless. Despite the truth in what he says about the scientific framework being almost certainly flawed in some ways, Kuhn fails to see the use in the so called busy-work. However, in actuality, this busy-work is the whole point of science – Solving problems. Take Germ Theory as an example, a revolutionary idea, but the only reason we think that is because of the normal science it created. Without normal science being the focus, scientists would never use germ theory to create hand sanitiser and cures for diseases, they would be just trying to disprove the paradigm.

This gets to the cause of the disparity, Kuhn sees knowledge as inherently valuable, and while this may be a good motivator for scientists, but for an ordinary individual knowledge that tiny microscopic creatures are the cause of their disease is useless, they’d care far more about an access to a cure.

I think the answer to this question is obvious. In Neo’s position taking the red pill is obviously the moral answer, freeing humanity from it’s blissful ignorance and waking them up to the harsh truth of reality, even if real life is horrible, it would be my duty to give everyone else the choice between freedom and uncertainty or happiness and beauty. By taking the blue pill you not only accept the status quo of your world but you also deny anyone else of rejecting it. However, if the choice of pills was choosing which reality to live in, the crumbling ruins of society and the matrix I would almost definitely choose the blue pill as I wouldn’t be able to accept that freedom is better than the matrix if freedom means living in misery.

-Lucas