What do you SEE & FEEL when you look at yourself in the mirror?

…a human-only characteristic…

How is the study of human individuals or groups similar to the study of natural phenomena, or things? Can we (and should we) use the same methods to study social behaviour that we use to study nature? Can we speak of facts in the human sciences, or only of opinions? Why might the study of human conduct not be considered a legitimate area of scientific research? Do we worry that if someone can explain our behaviour it shows that we are not really free? Can researchers place the appropriate distance between themselves and what they are studying, or are they always involved in ways that do not occur in science? Do our experiences get in the way of what we are trying to achieve, or are these experiences a fundamental key to understand human reality? Does this mark a significant shift in what we mean by knowledge?

Suppose we now bring someone into a room and place a glass of water before him. Will he drink? There appear to be only two possibilities: either he will or he will not… It is of no help to be told that… ‘he drinks because he is thirsty…’ If it means that he drinks because of a state of inner thirst, an inner casual event is invoked (and) it cannot serve as an explanation. B. F. Skinner

A good place to start could be observing people in their natural environment.

…changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. …obvious bias to record what a civilization is like before the observer was there to observe it. For example, introducing Western ideas into pre-contact peoples was one of archaeology's main concerns during the late 1900's, and "can be understood in part as the product of the American salvage anthropology.

Observation in Human Sciences… A geologist studying a rock is sure that the rock will not move, change or pretend while being observed. Exactly that, is the problem in Human Sciences and we call it, the Observer Effect… People don’t feet comfortable while being under the spot unless: a.They change their attitude to appear as they want to be seen by others. b.They get used to the observer as part of the familiar context. c.They are unaware that they are being observed.

Go native and wait for the tribe to get used to your presence. If the object does not know you are observing, it will not stop acting normal.

Behaviour is the main feature, distinctive of human sciences. Not only because they focus on human behaviour, but because they study humans in relation to the social behaviour people have regarding the different groups they might belong to. Humans FamilyReligion Civic associations Political orientation OccupationNationality Economical class Gender

Some features that make humans so unique could be: LanguageReasonFeelingsFree-willCreativityRelationships …and all those are studied somehow in the human sciences above. Some features that make humans so unique could be: LanguageReasonFeelingsFree-willCreativityRelationships …and all those are studied somehow in the human sciences above. Human Sciences EconomicsSociologyAnthropologyPsychology Political Science

Value-free knowledge.  is it only an issue of Human Sciences?  how things are in contrast with how we’d like them to be. What is the difference? Contrast between human sciences and natural sciences. In natural sciences the observer is not like what is being observed, whereas in the human sciences, people are observing people. Does this add value to the result or diminish the quality?

How would the owner of a supermarket decide the organisation of the racks?

You will seriously hurt your leg today while playing football during break!

Similarly to what happens when we observe people, the fact of making a prediction about something can affect, or at least change somehow, the reaction of those concerned by the mentioned predicted situation.

The BRIGHT students! The AVERAGE student! The LOW student! To what extent do you think your teachers’ expectations about your abilities affect how well you do at school? Would it be better if teachers had no expectations about you? Is that possible? Should students be divided into ‘good’ and not-so-good’? What are the pros and cons of doing this? To what extent do your own expectations about yourself affect your academic performance?