Is there solid justification for regarding knowledge in the natural sciences more highly than
knowledge in another area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences
and one other area of knowledge.
In “Stop Bullying the 'soft' Sciences,” Timothy D. Wilson shared that, “once, during a meeting at my
university, a biologist mentioned that he was the only faculty member present from a science department.
When I corrected him, noting that I was from the Department of Psychology, he waved his hand
dismissively, as if I were a Little Leaguer telling a member of the New York Yankees that I too played
baseball” (1). This captures the attitude that human sciences such as psychology are not considered as
highly as biology. How could this be? Natural Sciences such as biology have a rigorous methodology,
produce certain knowledge, and often lead to real-world usefulness. However, my claim is that there is no
solid justification for upholding a sharp distinction between biology and psychology. I will evaluate this
claim from the standpoint of methodology, certainty, or practical usefulness of psychological and
biological knowledge, respectively. I will argue that biology and psychology can produce certain and
practical knowledge using a solid methodology. Yet, we will find that both areas are subject to similar
limitations by considering counterclaims. Therefore, there is no solid justification for regarding biological
knowledge more highly than knowledge produced from psychological investigations.
As an argument to regard biology highly, let’s consider one of the most successful examples in biology
where the knowledge is produced using the ‘scientific method,’such as collecting experimental evidence
and logical reasoning. Alexander Flemming discovered one of the most used medicines: ‘penicillin’ to
treat bacterial infections (2). Flemming investigated the growth of the bacterium Staphylococcus that
causes infection in the throat. Interestingly, the fungus Penicillium destroyed the bacterium. Flemming
made the critical observation that bacteria could not grow on fungus. Flemming then hypothesized that
fungal colonies could synthesize chemicals that inhibit bacterial growth. Next, Flemming tested his
hypothesis through experimentation (3). Flemming not only discovered penicillin, but he was also able to
isolate antibiotic penicillin after his discovery, and it has saved countless lives ever since. Overall, the
discovery of penicillin led to the groundbreaking discovery of antibiotics. Penicillin is trusted worldwide
because it was discovered and validated using the scientific method. Therefore, penicillin is a clear case
implicating that there is solid justification for regarding such certain and practical biological knowledge
highly.
However, biological knowledge is not entirely certain. In general, biological theories and findings can
indeed be found to be erroneous, or in other words, be falsified. If so, how can we trust biological
findings? Being able to question evidence recruited from a theory is, on the one hand, what makes
biological knowledge scientific. On the other hand, it also set the stage to assess whether we can fully be
certain of biological knowledge. Even though falsifiable theories come with evidence, the evidence
cannot be entirely reliable. We simply don’t know if that evidence or the inferred theory is correct until
proven wrong, making biological knowledge uncertain. Falsification of a specific theory in science
results, in the end, that different a perspective is advanced.
As an example of such a theory in biology, the Davson-Danielli Model accounted for the cellular
membrane structure and the associated proteins (4). This model posits the existence of a layer of proteins
surrounding the phospholipid bilayer, the components surrounding the cell. This theory was supported
