Ethical constraints put justifiable limits on the pursuit of knowledge in the human sciences. To what extent do you agree with this claim?
Today I read an passage from Sigmund Freud's “Civilization and Its Discontents”. It discusses aggressions and how it limits us formalizing in harmony with each other. He also talk about how this aggression can be turned inward, which leads to depressions and repair.
KQ: Human sciences are less able to predict because humans have free will. But human sciences nevertheless try to establish laws of human behavior. How can this be?
KC: Human sciences establish laws/averages because we need something to compare our lives to and also make it so they can be generalized to the whole population.
Human sciences establish laws/averages because we need something to compare our lives to, and also make it so they can be generalized to the whole population. Standardized test and grades are averages that determine how intelligent and successful we are in school. In an NPR article by Anya Kamenetz, the issue of setting an average for all students is discussed. She argues that there is no average person. Grades are just a one dimentional score of how a multi dimensional person works. The grade does not show anything but a number on a scale that is compared to every other student in the year. The scores are used to rank the students by how well they do, but the score a student gets doesn't actually reflect them in an effective way. We as humans aren't the same to one another, we all function differently depending on what works best for us. There is no way to average us all up an expect us to do the same as the average says. The only reason we use the average is because we think it works, and it happens to be easier. But averages are very poor predictors of how humans function. Averages serve as a basis for comparison, yet they will never be able to appropriately determine how someone functions.