# data[].attributes.headline
In your groups, you will have identified the "contour" that is alligned with the Group of questions assigned to you:  "scope", "perspectives", "methods/tools" or "ethics". 

# data[].attributes.subject
In your groups, you will have identified the "contour" that is alligned with the Group of questions assigned to you:  "scope", "perspectives", "methods/tools" or "ethics". 

# data[].attributes.body
Choose one of the questions from this group, discuss it at length, and then one scribe from each group is to write a comprehensive answer under the appropriate heading.

Use the plus buttons to add a tile.

# data[].attributes.headline
Which group of questions belongs to "methods/tools of the Human Sciences"?

# data[].attributes.subject
Which group of questions belongs to "methods/tools of the Human Sciences"?

# data[].attributes.body
Then choose one question, discuss it, and write a comprehensive answer below.

# data[].attributes.headline
Which group of questions belongs to "ethics in Human Sciences"? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Which group of questions belongs to "ethics in Human Sciences"? 

# data[].attributes.body
Then choose one question, discuss it, and write a comprehensive answer below

# data[].attributes.headline
Which group of questions belongs to "scope of the Human Sciences"?

# data[].attributes.subject
Which group of questions belongs to "scope of the Human Sciences"?

# data[].attributes.body
Then chose one question, discuss it, and write a comprehensive answer below.

# data[].attributes.headline
Which group of questions belongs to "perspectives in the Human Sciences"?

# data[].attributes.subject
Which group of questions belongs to "perspectives in the Human Sciences"?

# data[].attributes.body
Then choose one question, discuss it, and write a comprehensive answer below.

# data[].attributes.headline
If two competing paradigms give different explanations of a phenomenon, how can we decide which explanation to accept?              Group 1 - Question 5  

# data[].attributes.subject
If two competing paradigms give different explanations of a phenomenon, how can we decide which explanation to accept?              Group 1 - Question 5  

# data[].attributes.body
Each model is derived from a different perspective, such that two competing paradigms exist in two different frames of mind – where they both describe the existence, behaviour or actions of the same thing despite the theories either being competing and non-agreeing.

For this example, quantum mechanics uses the lowest form of analysis (at the absolute microscopic scale), looking at the interactions between individual atomic particles and elementary particles (including electrons, quarks…). Here, nothing is deterministic, and certainty is defined only by the numerical value of the probability of an event occurring.  However, to the contrary, general relativity – takes a more macroscopic perspective, analysing the interactions of objects containing billions of atoms, where everything is deterministic, such that if A then B. Here, we consider that these perspectives are not of the same scale nor way of interactions but analyse the same things in our universe. When applying relativistic principles upon a quantum scale, the answer is nonsensical, and vice versa for the application of quantum mechanics upon the macroscopic scale. As such, each model resides upon their own scale, such that the accepted paradigm differs in the same universe upon the same interactions based on scale.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is it possible to discover laws of human behaviour in the same way that the natural sciences discover laws of nature? (group 2 Q7)

# data[].attributes.subject
Is it possible to discover laws of human behaviour in the same way that the natural sciences discover laws of nature? (group 2 Q7)

# data[].attributes.body
In general, it is possible to discover laws of human behaviour in some ways. For example, the economic laws of supply and demand are visible in many aspects. However, it cannot be as accurate as the laws of natural sciences such as Newton’s first law which acts the same on Earth. Although we can argue that natural sciences can not hold 100% true as well, human sciences are more changeable. Economics concepts have been changing constantly over the past hundreds of years. One example is the new classical theory of the long-run aggregate supply (LRAS) and the Keynesian theory of the aggregate supply.

Human sciences share the induction and deduction methods of discovery with natural science. Yet, humanities are distinguished from science because they depend a lot on perspectives. The situation of each individual can vary from a very wide scheme. Also, human behaviours are constantly changing as they can be affected easily by the environment such as the cultural and social change in the society. Conditions supported by a large database are somewhat predictable. However, this also introduces the risk of the manipulation of data. Therefore, we argue that human behaviours can be discovered in a similar way as the laws of nature when the method and procedure are being looked at with caution and that the potential risks are taken into consideration.

# data[].attributes.body
I like your qualified response to whether the HS can have laws. But I'd say the NS "laws" may just as much be ambiguous. Newton's "laws" are not that rigid, and have been surpassed by Einstein's laws of relativity. You've continued along these lines to offer a well written and nuanced response to the question. Well done. I'm reading this thinking "both HS and NS have their nuances and propensities to change", but both will do so for different reasons, different times and because of different methodologies. Maybe the question could be back to that fundamental one of whether we can "use" the scientific method for human research projects: answer may be "sort of". Do we need to learn to live with paradox? Maybe that's another way of admitting that this world and the people in it are both beautiful and predictable, flawed and random?

# data[].attributes.headline
This is definitely a perspectives question.

# data[].attributes.subject
This is definitely a perspectives question.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a well written piece of work. Your argument is "scale matters"... I'm wondering if you could also continue to think through the invitation in the question to "how can we decide which explanation to accept". Do ways of knowing kick in here? Reason? Emotion? Belief? So in your example, why have you picked out scale as the defining way to decide? Is it because you're prioritising logic/reason, or is it because someone had some inspiration, or God told you, or because you're in a good mood (emotion). Can you see how I want to push you to be thinking about how to decide vis a vis knowledge. Are your two paradigms actually seeking to frame the same phenomenon (as the question asks for)?

# data[].attributes.headline
To what extent can the human sciences use mathematical technique to make accurate predictions (Group 4 Q6)

# data[].attributes.subject
To what extent can the human sciences use mathematical technique to make accurate predictions (Group 4 Q6)

# data[].attributes.body
Human sciences can be interpreted with many different types of mathematical techniques, including simple counting and numbers, probability as well as statistics. extrapolation and interpolation also play a fundamental role in making accurate prediction in the field of human science. Maths can be used in many versatile ways and is a way of knowing, it has a very objective nature which makes it accurate in the way we know it although it could be utilised inaccurately in other contexts. Maths is also a superficial field of study and it doesn’t hold biases and isn’t swayed by emotional factors. For examples, the use of maths in prediction in an economic situation and also in a geographical situation. Maths in economics can be used to predict future economic situations and help to make educated decisions in a way which most benefits society. Although using maths in prediction may present itself with systematic errors, these errors are unable to be avoided and if not recognised the predictions made could be unintentionally skewed which means the knowledge gained from this prediction may not reflect a real life situation. For example, in a census survey a demographic of people could be missing and data could therefore be inaccurate and not representative of a general population rather of a more specific one.

# data[].attributes.headline
This is definitely a methods/tools question.

# data[].attributes.subject
This is definitely a methods/tools question.

# data[].attributes.body
Good job here. You rightly reinforce the apparent objective nature of mathematics and therefore appeal to it as a sort of universal way of knowing that may well be transferable indeed across the Human Sciences. You make quite some claims about alleged objectivity - isn't Maths only as good as the user? - you conceded further down that in fact manipulation can and does occur due to bias, agendas and the like. This nuanced strategy in examining knowledge issues is the way to go, and I hope therefore this is a good practice for your essays coming up. Other might like to comment on your writing here.

# data[].attributes.headline
Do researchers have different ethical responsibilities when they are working with human subjects compared to when they are working with animals? Group 3

# data[].attributes.subject
Do researchers have different ethical responsibilities when they are working with human subjects compared to when they are working with animals? Group 3

# data[].attributes.body
To explain the question with the contour of ethics. There has always been and will always be huge debate over in-human trials and animal trials, when it comes to research. As for the researchers, humans and animals are all the observed objects. In any case, they must respect the object being observed and cannot intervene and influence them. But when we are working in the perspective of the observed object, there are different ethical responsibilities. For humans, they have the ability to say no to the researchers, therefore all the experiments should be based on their agreement. Without coming to an agreement, between researchers and humans, there would be no human trials before immediately selling the pharmaceuticals. Morals play a part in it because you cannot just use humans as test subjects, you have to be very confident that it will not harm them. In animals, they have to be researched in relaxed/ tame conditions so the animal is in as much comfort as possible. Testing them in hostile conditions could be cruel and then raise ethical issues. Testing in animals and humans, before commercial use is imperative to gather as much information as possible, making the pharmaceutical safe and useful.

# data[].attributes.headline
This is an ethics question: and interesting one which to me feels more like a pure ethics question rather than one nuanced towards knowledge. 

# data[].attributes.subject
This is an ethics question: and interesting one which to me feels more like a pure ethics question rather than one nuanced towards knowledge. 

# data[].attributes.body
Loving your picture. It livens up the page! KQ: does pulling a dog's tongue while it is sleeping demonstrate lack of respect for the dog? Would the dog be able to know if this is an ethically acceptable thing for a human to do? A great KQ from this might be "How do we know if dogs are sentient or not?"

Anyway, where were we? The question itself is premised on assumptions we make about what it means to be human (and animal). Once you've argued for that position, then the question is acceptable, I think. So perhaps underlying this is the KQ "how can I know myself"?, and then once you've answered that, then what I do with my "self" (be researched, examined, subject of enquiry) becomes an ethical puzzle. When it comes to human research programmes there are aways ethics guidelines and committees you have to get your work approved by. How would you know if the rules are ethically defendable? Divine fiat (God says so)? Group opinion (we say so for these reasons)? Virtue (Aristotle would say so if he was alive today)? etc.