Compare and contrast two quotes. Social Sciences Essay

Compare and Contrast Two Quotes
Student Name
Institution
Date
The debate between natural and social sciences has been intense over the years as some scholars seek to demonstrate both share significant characteristics while others holding that the two are different. The debates have often focused on the rules of scientific methods used to test theories. On the one hand, some individuals hold that the same prime of scientific methods used in natural “hard” sciences are also applied in social “soft” sciences. Such a view sees both as requiring rigorous scientific approached to achieve the set objectives. Such a position, consequently holds that natural sciences do not differ from social sciences, hence “Science is science.” On the contrary, some scholars view social sciences as distinct from natural sciences. Such authors even see differences among the various disciplines in both the “hard” and “soft” sciences. Hence, instead of reconciling both, these scholars believe that they should be approached from different perspectives. Such a difference is demonstrated by two authors, Stephen Van Evera and Susan Strange. Whereas Evera’s quote demonstrates the need to consider both “hard” and “soft” sciences as sciences, Strange’s quote shows that these are distinct and should be considered so.
Summary of the Quotes
Evera’s quote endeavors to address the misconception that “hard” sciences are more scientific compared to the “soft” sciences. Over the years, there has been an attempt to draw the line between the two. “Hard” sciences like physics and chemistry are considered to use rigorous, quantitative methods. On the contrary, the “soft” sciences like psychology and sociology are termed as less vigorous due to their use of qualitative methods. However, the rigor of scientific study has less to do with the discipline and more with the researcher’s approach. For instance, a majority of psychological investigations rely on large samples and are highly controlled, hence they are highly quantitative. Consequently, Evera implies that as it is the case with natural sciences, the social sciences research should be done in a systematic and evidence-based manner, so results in conclusions regarding the causality. The quote also demonstrates that the tools used in the study of the natural world are the same as those used in the study of the social world. Similarly, the same standards are applied to test the theories in both categories.
Strange’s quote demonstrates the wide gap that exists among the people who hold different views on issues regarding world politics or in international political economy. The wide gap prevents learners from exploring different ideas across various viewpoints. The move prevents students from exploring ideas from realists, liberals, Marxists or radicals. Similarly, the proponents of the various viewpoints do not engage in substantial debates. They appear to belong to different worlds, such that their worlds never cross. Hence, learners cannot pursue different viewpoints. They have to choose one, say Marxism and stick to it. No debates are encouraged between the various viewpoints. Hence, once learners are introduced to any of the “menus,” they have no opportunity to explore the remaining ones. The “menus” appear to have different starting points and a predetermined destination. Hence, once someone begins with one “menu,” they will never cross the designated path and take another “menu.”
How they contradict
While Evera’s quote seeks to harmonize approaches to the study of social sciences with natural sciences, Strange’s quote emphasizes the need to study the two using different methodologies. Evera looks at the work involved in the study of natural sciences then examines the same in social sciences. Evera is convinced that the methods used in the study of phenomena in social sciences are as rigorous as those applied in natural sciences. If then the methodologies applied in social sciences as elaborate as those in natural sciences, why should social sciences be considered as inferior? Evera believes that this should not be the case. Instead, Evera encourages a different approach to the study of social sciences. His view stems from the understanding that the prime method applied in the “hard sciences” should be the same as those in social sciences. On the contrary, Strange does not seek to reconcile the approaches used in both the “hard sciences” and the social sciences. She does not believe in an “all-embracing theory” that claims to predict what will happen in the field of economics (Strange, 2015 pg. 17). Hence, instead of reconciling both natural sciences with social sciences, Strange demonstrates the essence of looking at both from different angels.
Furthermore, while Evera thinks that “Science is Science,” Strange rejects this as an attempt by social sciences to imitate the natural sciences. In an attempt to show that social sciences are the same as “hard sciences,” Evera spends time demonstrating how social sciences build upon theory, just like their counterpart natural sciences. He starts by defining theory as “general statements that describe phenomena and explain the causes or effects of classes of phenomena” (Evera, 2015 pg. 8). These theories are made up of causal laws, antecedent conditions, and explanations that have both dependent and independent variables. In the same way, social sciences make use of theories, natural sciences also rely on theories to explain phenomena. Strange rejects the notion by highlighting social sciences tend to “imitate the natural sciences and to discover elaborate ‘laws’ of the interactions system” (Strange, 2015 pg. 17). She believes that such a move is a wild goose chase. Instead of spending more efforts proving that both natural and social sciences are equal, Strange holds that individuals can focus more energies some of the aspects of human vice and folly.
Evera’s statement, “Science is Science” is a reminder that social scientists should not be uncompromising in the search of trust. Evera proceeds to demonstrate the vigor social scientists apply to explain phenomena. He begins by examining the aspects of a good theory, which allows the reader to appreciate how social scientists derive theories. Evera demonstrates the method for making the theories does not matter. Some scholars may use deduction, where they “infer explanations from one general, already-established causal laws” (Evera, 2015 pg. 22). An example here is a majority of the economic theories that follow the...