Comparing Scientific Paradigms: Methodology, Evolution, and Philosophy
Natural Sciences vs. Human Sciences: Key Differences
The natural sciences have the objective of studying nature, material objects, and physical aspects, including their changes and developments, but not the human aspects of the world. Disciplines within this field include biology, physics, and chemistry. In contrast, human sciences study cultural society, human relationships, and evolution. Examples include psychology, sociology, and anthropology.
Traditional Science Vision vs. New Philosophers
The traditional vision posits that science is a completely rational activity that follows strict logic. Empirical facts are crucial when assessing laws and theories: facts confirm them, and contradictory facts distort them. Furthermore, traditional science is characterized as neutral, objective, and autonomous. The new philosophers criticize this view, arguing that scientific knowledge depends on various factors: biological, social, and technical. They describe science as an irrational, interested, selective, and heteronomous activity. Finally, the traditional focus is on cognitive and methodological aspects, while the new philosophers emphasize historical and sociological dimensions.
Why New Philosophers Prioritize Sociological and Historical Aspects
This means that scientific theories are influenced by the circumstances surrounding their formulation, affecting which theories are accepted and which are rejected. New philosophers do not prioritize cognitive aspects because they argue that knowledge or reason alone is insufficient to accept a formulation, and methodology does not provide a definitive way to assert the validity of any formulation.
Methodological Challenges in the Human Sciences
The difficulties presented in this field arise because man is both the object and the subject of science. Studying human experience is challenging because it involves an affective charge, and direct observation is not always possible, often requiring reliance on documents or other media. Another difficulty is the increasing trend of human sciences toward mathematization. Finally, while all sciences involve value judgments, many hypotheses in the human sciences still carry strong ideological connotations.
Comparing Fixism, Lamarckism, and the Synthetic Theory of Evolution
Fixism describes nature in its entirety as an ultimate, immutable, and finished reality where living things are unchanged, remaining today as they were designed from the start. Fixism is often paired with creationism and opposes the scientific theory of evolution.
Lamarck’s Theory proposed the first coherent theory of evolution, or rather, the transformation of living beings. However, it lacked evidence for a mechanism of transformation (e.g., the long neck of giraffes was explained by persistent adaptive efforts). This lack of evidence initially allowed the fixism debate to persist.
The Synthetic Theory (also called Neo-Darwinism) enriches Darwinism with new discoveries in genetics. The primary mechanisms of evolution identified by this theory are:
- Natural selection, as proposed in Darwin’s theory.
- Random mutations, or changes in the genetic structure of organisms.
- Genetic drift, a random process that modifies the genetic structure of populations over several generations.
- Gene flow, the process by which populations become genetically homogeneous.