Michael Scriven - A Possible Distinction between Traditional Scientific Disciplines and the Study of
Human Behaviour
● In all sciences there exists a descriptive, nonexplanatory aspect
○ e.g. planets in astronomy, or size of national debt in economics
○ some sciences are particularly descriptive, some are not, but this dividing
line does not correspond to social/natural sciences
● It seems implausible to suggest that human behaviour is undetermined as opposed to the
natural sciences, which are determined
○ if we imagine any change in behaviour, we naturally expect to find
changes in value of other parameters
● Precise explanations are possible in some behavioural fields
○ e.g. in psychology, behaviour in the face of restraints/compulsions OR
choice given heavily weighted alternatives may be straightforward to predict
● Even the simplest phenomena in behavioural sciences are much more complex than in
physical sciences
○ more standing conditions must be specified to determine a functional
relationship - more variables
○ the useful concepts in observation statements etc include many from
physics and maths
○ many of the procedures for explaining behaviour are embedded in
everyday language as a result of long experience
● Practical problems of prediction are more likely to be insoluble in the behavioural
sciences
○ The problems faced by the student of behaviour are much more difficult
that those faced by the early physicists
■ some are already solved by common sense, so the rest
are naturally the more difficult
■ exact solutions in engineering, meteorology,
aerodynamics are very difficult because of the difficult of testing, and these
problems are much more complex in behaviour
■ there are many critical variables even in the simplest
interesting cases
○ It is extremely unlikely that any unificatory theory like that of gravity
can be discovered in psychology etc
■ even Freud mainly applies to abnormality and not at all
to perception and learning
○ Physicists and chemists are able to reduce objects to atoms, molecules
etc, but this is not possible in behavioural sciences
■ the human being is the fundamental experimental
element
● Mathematical economics is able to model based on rational, equally informed, equal
desires human beings, and these may be dominating factors, but it is unable to model the degree
and effect of deviance
○ science similarly models in idealised conditions, but its predictions can
be realised to an indefinitely high degree of approximation
● Two possible theses about the future of behavioural sciences
Human Behaviour
● In all sciences there exists a descriptive, nonexplanatory aspect
○ e.g. planets in astronomy, or size of national debt in economics
○ some sciences are particularly descriptive, some are not, but this dividing
line does not correspond to social/natural sciences
● It seems implausible to suggest that human behaviour is undetermined as opposed to the
natural sciences, which are determined
○ if we imagine any change in behaviour, we naturally expect to find
changes in value of other parameters
● Precise explanations are possible in some behavioural fields
○ e.g. in psychology, behaviour in the face of restraints/compulsions OR
choice given heavily weighted alternatives may be straightforward to predict
● Even the simplest phenomena in behavioural sciences are much more complex than in
physical sciences
○ more standing conditions must be specified to determine a functional
relationship - more variables
○ the useful concepts in observation statements etc include many from
physics and maths
○ many of the procedures for explaining behaviour are embedded in
everyday language as a result of long experience
● Practical problems of prediction are more likely to be insoluble in the behavioural
sciences
○ The problems faced by the student of behaviour are much more difficult
that those faced by the early physicists
■ some are already solved by common sense, so the rest
are naturally the more difficult
■ exact solutions in engineering, meteorology,
aerodynamics are very difficult because of the difficult of testing, and these
problems are much more complex in behaviour
■ there are many critical variables even in the simplest
interesting cases
○ It is extremely unlikely that any unificatory theory like that of gravity
can be discovered in psychology etc
■ even Freud mainly applies to abnormality and not at all
to perception and learning
○ Physicists and chemists are able to reduce objects to atoms, molecules
etc, but this is not possible in behavioural sciences
■ the human being is the fundamental experimental
element
● Mathematical economics is able to model based on rational, equally informed, equal
desires human beings, and these may be dominating factors, but it is unable to model the degree
and effect of deviance
○ science similarly models in idealised conditions, but its predictions can
be realised to an indefinitely high degree of approximation
● Two possible theses about the future of behavioural sciences
