Understanding Natural Sciences and the Illusions of Social Sciences

Often, the distinctions between natural sciences and what are commonly referred to as 'social sciences' are blurred, if not entirely overlooked. This article aims to elucidate the fundamental differences, especially showcasing why 'social sciences' are in fact not sciences but rather a misrepresentation of human understanding. By scrutinizing the methods and underlying philosophies, we explore the defining qualities of natural sciences and debunk the fallacies within so-called 'social sciences.'

The True Nature of Natural Sciences

At its heart, natural science is the systematic and logical approach to discovering how the physical world operates. It encompasses branches such as physics, chemistry, biology, and astronomy, all of which rely heavily on empirical evidence and observational data to construct theories and validate hypotheses.

Natural science is grounded in the principle of objectivity and reproducibility. Scientists make observations, formulate hypotheses, and conduct experiments to test these hypotheses. The scientific method, a cornerstone of natural science, ensures that findings are based on rigorous testing and verification. This commitment to factual accuracy and empirical research is what distinguishes natural science from other forms of human inquiry.

The Myth of Social Sciences

Conversely, what is often termed 'social sciences'—such as anthropology, psychology, and sociology—fail to measure up to these standards. These fields, by relying on qualitative data and personal interviews, often overlook the critical elements that define true scientific inquiry. The term 'social sciences' is a misnomer, as these subjects do not adhere to the same rigorous methodologies and principles as natural sciences.

For instance, the reappropriate labeling of historical figures such as Queen Elizabeth I as 'non-binary' by some researchers is a prime example of the intellectual disservice done to our understanding of human history and biology. Queen Elizabeth I reigned during the late 16th and early 17th centuries and was unmarried throughout her life, earning her the nickname 'The Virgin Queen.' Her gender and role as a monarch were defined by the societal and biological norms of her time. Labeling her as 'non-binary' is not only anachronistic but also reflects the ideologically driven approaches often found in certain areas of so-called 'social science.'

A similar case can be made with Joan of Arc, who led French forces during the Hundred Years' War. Her devotion to her faith and her beliefs were central to her life and actions. The idea of gender transformation for her is nonsensical, given the historical context and the profound impact of her faith on her actions. Any suggestion that her gender was anything other than her self-identified and biologically determined female gender serves to obfuscate the clear and distinct historical narrative.

Empirical Evidence and Objectivity

One of the most fundamental issues with the so-called 'social sciences' is their reliance on qualitative data and subjective interpretations. This approach often leads to a lack of objectivity and a failure to provide credible, verifiable results. In contrast, natural sciences rely on empirical evidence, which is gathered through reproducible methods and subject to peer review.

The necessity of empirical evidence and reproducibility is crucial in natural sciences. It ensures that any findings can be verified by other scientists, thus validating the scientific process. This level of critical scrutiny is absent in many areas of so-called 'social science,' where personal bias and ideologically driven interpretations can lead to flawed conclusions and theories.

Conclusion: Natural Sciences vs. Social Sciences

In conclusion, natural sciences are defined by their rigorous methodologies, empirical evidence, and adherence to the scientific method. On the other hand, the term 'social sciences' represents a misnomer and a mischaracterization of the human endeavor to understand social phenomena. These fields often fail to meet the standards of true scientific inquiry, leading to interpretations that are subjective and often ideologically driven.

It is essential to maintain a clear distinction between natural sciences and what are commonly referred to as 'social sciences' to ensure the integrity of scientific research and the accurate representation of human history and biology.