Philosophy - Methodologies

[Nenad]

I have an assignment to do in my philosophy class which is fairly simply broken down to:

Which methodology should be used to analyze human sciences: Hyphotetical deductive or the interpretive (hermeneutic) method.

Now, i just have one question. What the am i supposed to write in the body part? Does anyone have any tips as to how to actually write the body of this essay, as I can not find any research material where it states how exactly are these methods used to analyze human sciences (history, language, philosophy etc.).

Any help is appreciated, but don't write the essay for me, i need to do this on my own XD

 

[Hatebreeder]

From what time are you talking about?

Human sciences were first "recorded" in the period of humanism (History)
And as far as I can remember, wasn't there a code, that hindered people doing cruel stuff to the human body, because it was immoral? (Philosophy)
In some cultures, Human bodys were taken apart, because it was said to grant some kind of enhancement and the old were fed to the younger generation (cannibalism). These were cultures like in Africa and in Australia.

I also think the first legitimate scripts about the human body were written in Russian ( I'm not sure, however).

 

[sqrage]

Introduce both terms and explain how they go about analyzing human sciences.

State which one you think is better for the occasion in your thesis.

Go about proving your thesis using difference explanations in the body paragraphs. Explain in depth how your preferred one goes about analyzing. Then in another paragraph you can contrast it with the other method of analysis. Then perhaps you can use a specific example and apply both methods of analysis and show why your preferred one is superior.

Then conclude.

(Btw I have no idea about anything in this specific subject, but I'm pretty sure this structure works for almost any comparative essay.)

 

[Nenad]

From what time are you talking about?

Human sciences were first "recorded" in the period of humanism (History)
And as far as I can remember, wasn't there a code, that hindered people doing cruel stuff to the human body, because it was immoral? (Philosophy)
In some cultures, Human bodys were taken apart, because it was said to grant some kind of enhancement and the old were fed to the younger generation (cannibalism). These were cultures like in Africa and in Australia.

I also think the first legitimate scripts about the human body were written in Russian ( I'm not sure, however).

It's the modern day social sciences, e.g History, Language, Philosophy, Culture etc..

It is generally the ideas (around the topic) of Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper.

@sqrage

Yeah, i fidgeted about the topic in this way, it's just that it doesn't agree with me so i have to put my subjectivity at the side, which is very hard because the method (hypothetical-deduction) is a fallacy.

I found some more research material and got myself something to work with, although very little is still enough to support my main theses. The thing is that they gave us very little to work with in terms of key points so i was kinda stumped.

Still open to suggestions if anyone has any, but i'm close to finishing the essay as well.

 

[Hatebreeder]

I think it's too general to be put into an essay.

I'd take out an example such as eyes.
The methods of repairing, operating, desoceting and what not are very, very interesting.

 

[phyrex1an]

Yeah, i fidgeted about the topic in this way, it's just that it doesn't agree with me so i have to put my subjectivity at the side, which is very hard because the method (hypothetical-deduction) is a fallacy.

I was about to post how this is a gross simplification, only true for the strictest meaning of fallacy. The fallacy of hypothetical deduction is that [noparse]Ex(x) -> Ax(x)[/noparse] doesn't hold, obviously. Then I was about to post how the use of statistical reasoning allows us to completely eliminate the fallacy (thus, born was the scientific method).
But I didn't post this, instead I read the internet and found this excellent post: http://telescoper.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/a-little-bit-of-bayes/

 

[Nenad]

I was about to post how this is a gross simplification, only true for the strictest meaning of fallacy. The fallacy of hypothetical deduction is that [noparse]Ex(x) -> Ax(x)[/noparse] doesn't hold, obviously. Then I was about to post how the use of statistical reasoning allows us to completely eliminate the fallacy (thus, born was the scientific method).
But I didn't post this, instead I read the internet and found this excellent post: http://telescoper.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/a-little-bit-of-bayes/

Thanks for that one, helped me close of my argument without being too biased and considering all the points of each view. :thup:

 

[sqrage]

Although a wordpress blog doesn't make for a very concrete source.

 

[Nenad]

It's more that it made me aware of how the deductive method was actually made viable to science ^^

It is mentioned in Karl Popper (one of the philosophers) research, but as i said before the actual information on the core of this subject is very limited ^^