Reply to comment

Scientists have such a need to be sure of things. The way they teach and learn finds its basis in fact. Rarely in science, do you hear a professor label something being taught "this is the most plausible explanation" or this is the "best theory we can create based on the scientific evidence". I have talked to many students who are biology, chemistry, and physics majors, and when I ask them why they don't like non-science courses many say "because there is no definitive answer, and I need to know there is right answer". I am not sure if they were talking specifically about science in an academic setting (the teacher wants one answer that is correct, no room for personal opinion), or that science itself is constantly working toward a correct answer, and everyone in science is working toward that same answer.

The latter is what I think separates the natural sciences from other subjects such as the humanities and social sciences. In those subjects, it seems that there is much more opinion, and much more openness to conflicting theories. This, most likely has to do with the ways in which theories are negated or affirmed. The natural sciences use experiments and the scientific method to reject or affirm a theory, while the humanities mainly use the language of argument. The social sciences, on the other hand, use a combination of the two. This aspect of the natural sciences reinforces the need to be right or wrong. Either the experiment works or it doesn't. There is no middle ground that can be created by an articulate argument.

Furthermore, this difference got me thinking about what is the basic distinction between natural science, social science, and the humanities. Definitions I got from an encyclopedia state that the natural sciences use scientific method to study the laws of nature, while the social sciences use scientific method to study human behavior. The humanities, on the other hand use speculative or analytical methods other than empirical evidence. So I was a little off in my assumption, in that the social sciences use only empirical evidence. Given these facts about the nature of each academic category, it is easy to see why natural scientists feel a need to be correct, because there is a preconceived notion that there are inherent laws of nature, and therefore, a correct answer. But what if there actually are not any laws at all? What if we are working toward a correct answer that does not actually exist, but only seems to exist, or only works 99.99% of the time? What would that mean for the natural sciences?