Talk:Human science

Does the article have to be capitalized 'Human Science' or no? WinterSpw (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

History as science - or not?

In the introduction, history is included among the Human Sciences. Later in the article, it is included among humanities that are not sciences. This should be one way or the other, but as a natural scientist, I would prefer the decision to be finalized by authors involved directly. That said, I would certainly prefer that historians feet be held to the fire of verification, as well as theoretical consistency. Pcrosen (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear how the human sciences are different from the social sciences. What would be different between humanistic social science and just social science or just political science and human political science? Is this just a difference between English English and American English? Nitpyck (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an error that is an oversight hopefully not an intentional American intellectual positioning that I see all too often on Wikipedia these days. Moral Science is not simply Human Science in the sense that I would argue that there is specific humanist tradition within the Human Science that can be called Moral Science. Moral Science is connected to the German term Geisteswissenschaft. More on this context can be found within the introduction to Gadamer's Truth_and_method.

The person who wrote this article was incorrect to specifically attribute the term, "human science," to phenomenology (Husserl). The "human sciences" have, historically, been a part of the German educational system - much as the "social sciences" are commonly used in the Anglophone countries. Husserl was German, and he simply used the common category found in German universities.

Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is mainly about topics that do not concern ones understanding of human science, and the explanation to the subject offered by the universities teaching it is excluded. That is, the fact that human science is a blend of, amongst other subjects, biology, sociology and anthropology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.52.194 (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060717184042/http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e36_2/darwin_influence.htm to http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e36_2/darwin_influence.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I am sure that theology is human science too. Because it is interested in religion (not only Christianity) and religion is one of the main aspects of history, sociology etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesanCZ (talk • contribs) 23:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Other wikipedians have mentioned some missing "Human sciences" above: Moral Science, Theology. I am actually coming in from cognitive sciences - exact sciences - biochemistry, and was looking where pedagogy - education fits in because if find it missing in the image used in the wikipedia cognitive science article, but assumed pedagogy or education would maybe be a subsection of philosophy? But apparently it is not. This lead to a closer look at how these major sections are organised. What a mess: some have portals eg Portal:Linguistics, idem Language, Constructed Languages, Writing, Psychology, Philosophy and they have a frame where they refer to each other. Some are WikiProjects.

To understand things and build schema, I find myself reading the bottom parts of the wikipedia articles where you see how the article fits into larger schemas, with links to portals, stages, categories - also a way wikipedians use to order things and link to relevant articles.

I thought sciences were subdivided into exact sciences and human sciences, but

in the article "Science", science is divided things into: 3.1 Natural science, 3.2 Social science, 3.3 Formal science, 3.4 Applied science, 3.5 Interdisciplinary science.

I think bringing order in things, grouping things - subdividing things into categories or clades, is the passion of people who are into ontology, right? Can these people come to Help?

Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This article does not define Human Science well and includes information that is unclear or irrelevant to it's definition. It's as if the writer copy and pasted excerpts from various sources and edited/paraphrased them, rather than assimilating the information and writing a comprehensive discourse. This article should simply define the human sciences, discuss how it relates to the natural sciences and humanities, review the history of the human sciences, and explicate how the human sciences are applied.--Gabrielladh (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)