Since the advent of the Scientific Revolution, researchers, particularly in the western world have believed so much in the scientific progress as opposed to any other. This has seen them regard the scientific leaders and scientific assumptions in high esteem than their contemporaries in the other sectors of the society that are considered lesser, such as the business or government leaders. This paper, therefore, discusses how the Human Sciences are less certain than the Natural Sciences.
The natural and human sciences have a disparity in their assumptions and approaches, but have the same target audience. Their science subjects also differ; thus, their processes adapt accordingly. Whereas the natural sciences give themselves the chance to see or observe and respond, the human sciences, on the other, hand experience more specific limitations that do not make them wholly dependable. Nevertheless, the audiences of the two types of sciences remain the same; that is when it involves a person or a group of people, the fact remains that the target audience has a common human nature. Although the natural sciences may in some instances incorporate technology, they deal with the same audience just like the human sciences.

It is common knowledge that scientific concepts are not watertight. This leads to the question that many people have been asking: Why are some concepts so certain and convincing that individuals have started considering them as being reliable? One of the reasons for this is that people put their trust in the scientific concept used by the scientists in the formulation of their assumptions and conclusions. The scientific approaches that the natural sciences employ mostly rely on reasoning and rationality as the method of comprehension. This approach tries to examine observations and have outcomes that are credible and can also be replicated. It is a process that involves the participation of several individuals and they constantly improve it in an attempt to describe the universe in a manner that is objective.

For instance, in chemistry, there exists are numerous assumptions, whereby one of them is the collision theory. This theory offers a qualitative justification of the reason why chemical reactions take place, and why the rates of reactions vary for various reactions. In a chemical reaction tests that we conducted in the class, all the results were the same. This changed with the increase in the reactants’ concentration levels. Although this is definitely a very simplified perception of the issue, it shows a strength of the natural science approaches and assumptions that come from them. Replicated experiments will all give similar outcomes, where every successful test strengthens the assumption even more. As such, assumptions in natural sciences are reliable due to the nature in which they come about.

Whereas assumptions in natural sciences are reliable and conclusive when outcomes of the trials have consistency over time, those in human sciences cannot essentially rely their assumptions on this since human beings cannot be relied on to act in a similar manner. For instance, water can always be boiled to 100 degrees under constant conditions, however, the same cannot be the case with humans even when the conditions remain the same.

Still, the disparity between the human and natural sciences in terms of reliability are entrenched. Based on the limitations described above, there is no way that an assumption which is based on the human sciences can intend to project or describe what will occur or happen precisely in every single instance, like it is the case with the natural sciences. Rather, the assumptions in the natural sciences intend to generally determine patterns in the people or communities’ behaviour.