The Difference Between Natural Science and Social Science

Name:

Instructor:

Course:

Due Date:

Theory Application: The difference between Natural Science and Social Science

As witnessed in various academic fields and branches, theories can either precede or vice versa. The difference, however, is in the type of analysis being made, the mode of examination, and what is already known in the natural world. In natural science, theories precede facts because they are needed to make sense of facts as they are universally applicable, but this is not the case in social sciences where the problem of induction persists. This paper argues about the differences in theory and fact application as regards natural science and human science.  

First Argument

Natural science is a discipline of science that investigates the physical worlds. It involves application of empirical studies to establish facts as is done in physics and chemistry (Callaway 266). Natural science mostly applies deductive thinking defined as “the process of using general rule to make a prediction about a future action or even” (Marzano et al. 104). It involves using what is already known to make predictions that form hypotheses that are later tested to verify their truthfulness. Deductive thinking is the primary reason why theories of natural science precede facts. In natural science, it can be argued that theories should be established because they create a universal framework that apply to all facts and not just specific examples.

Albert Einstein’s Special and General Theory of Relativity was arrived at through deductive reasoning. The theory argues that the laws of physics are the same; that motion should be defined relative to a reference point; and time and space are relative and not absolute ideas (Baird 161). The presumptions made in this theory are based on deductive thinking where general rules and observation are narrowed to testable premises. For instance, Einstein may have observed some pattern on the issue of time and space to conclude that they are relative and not absolute concepts. This may have happened using existing facts. Hence, he wanted to establish something new. When it comes to natural science, theory formulation begins from general assumptions to more specific ones and devising a specific hypothesis that can be tested. The finding of the investigation is what forms a general theory.  

The nature of science pertaining to the physical world can only be done foremost through a theory and then by establishment of facts later. It also requires the testing of data with known facts – to confirm the original assumptions. This is usually the basis of most scientific investigations. Nature is predictable and consistent, and this allows one to create a hypothesis based on a general idea and narrow it to specifics that can be tested. A researcher can generate valuable and practical models of the natural phenomena using the conclusive findings. Using Einstein’s Special and General Theory of Relativity, one can assume that the principles were made visually or using scientific equipment. For instance, understating space may have involved use of cosmic distance ladder – a scale making possible the measurement of progressively larger distances in space (Baryshev and Teerikorpi 18).

In order to establish facts through theories, there needs to be empirical investigation. The facts established from the Special and General Theory of Relativity may have applied knows scientific facts and undergone some empirical testing to establish they are true. The good thing is that there are equipments meant to test hypothesis that to establish its truth. Normally, a hypothesis based on observation will be formed to elaborate on a discovery by means of causal mechanism (Fagan and Durrani 81). The hypothesis is tested by assessing the findings of the observation or by observing the reality of a new discovery. If the experiment does not verify the hypothesis, it usually rejected or modified. This continues until the hypothesis is verified, creating facts ultimately. Studies involving space use equipment such as Radar to measure the distance in the solar system or supernovae to measure the distance of other galaxies (Smith 371).      

Second Argument

In social sciences, facts precede theories, but these theories can never become universal due to the problem of induction. Inductive thinking or approach is defined as the process of “making generalizations based on a limited number of observations or examples and testing” (Sonnabend 5). The problems of induction are two, namely the Justification Problem and Hume’s Problem. These two problems will be used to analyse financial predictions. Inductive thinking follows a specific mode of observation, looking for patterns, predictability, precision, and hypothesis formulation (Fagan and Durrani 81). This pattern is usually applied in making financial predictions.

The Justification Problem refutes certainty of facts derived from inductive thinking, and requires a theory detailing of how an inductive finding is justified (Gabbay & Smets 188). For instance, given that A has had a chance of being B in the past,  there is no surety of A becoming B in the future.  The Justification Problem can be applied in financial prediction to deter the use of future predictions on financial matters. A good example is the notion that real estate “never” goes down, but in 2008 plummeted and caused the 2008 financial crisis. Although induction of past events cannot provide definitive proof for conclusive outcomes about the future, they have a tendency to support the outcomes.