Which of the Following Is Not Considered a Natural Science?
The short version is: anything that studies human culture, meaning, or values—like history, sociology, or philosophy—doesn’t belong in the natural‑science family.
What Is a Natural Science?
When you hear “natural science,” most people picture a lab coat, a microscope, and a stack of data sheets. In practice it’s any discipline that tries to explain the physical world using observation, experimentation, and the scientific method. Think physics, chemistry, biology, earth science, and even astronomy It's one of those things that adds up..
These fields share a common playbook: they formulate hypotheses, test them under controlled conditions, and then refine—or toss—those ideas based on what the evidence says. The goal isn’t to dictate how we should live; it’s to describe how things actually work, from the spin of a neutron to the migration of whales.
The Core Traits
- Empirical evidence – data that can be measured, recorded, and reproduced.
- Quantitative focus – numbers, equations, and models dominate the conversation.
- Predictive power – a good theory lets you forecast future events or experimental outcomes.
If a field leans heavily on these traits, you’re probably looking at a natural science.
Why It Matters (and What People Usually Get Wrong)
You might wonder why we care whether something is a natural science or not. The answer is two‑fold And that's really what it comes down to..
First, funding and career paths often hinge on that label. In real terms, grants for “natural science research” flow from agencies like the NSF, while “humanities” or “social science” funds come from a different pool. If you misclassify your project, you could be sending your proposal to the wrong desk and never hear back.
Second, public perception matters. When a news outlet calls climate change “just a theory,” they’re playing on the layperson’s confusion between scientific theory and guess. Knowing which disciplines are natural sciences helps you spot that kind of spin Turns out it matters..
But here’s the thing most people miss: the boundary isn’t always a clean line. Some subjects—psychology, for instance—straddle the fence, using both experimental methods and interpretive analysis. That gray area fuels endless debates in academia and on Twitter Worth keeping that in mind..
How to Decide: Is It Natural Science or Not?
Below is a step‑by‑step mental checklist. Grab a pen, or just keep it in your head while you scan a list of subjects.
1. Look at the Core Question
- Natural science: “What causes the chemical reaction?” “How does gravity affect planetary orbits?”
- Not natural science: “Why did the Renaissance happen?” “What does justice mean in modern society?”
If the question is about how something works in the material world, you’re probably in natural‑science territory Worth knowing..
2. Check the Methodology
- Experiments, measurements, statistical models? → Natural science.
- Critical essays, textual analysis, philosophical argument? → Not natural science.
3. Identify the Units of Study
- Atoms, ecosystems, galaxies → Natural.
- Cultures, languages, legal systems → Not natural.
4. Ask About Predictive Power
- Can you write an equation that predicts the outcome? → Natural.
- Is the goal to interpret meaning rather than predict? → Not natural.
5. See Where It Sits in Academia
- Department of Physics, Chemistry, Earth Sciences? → Natural.
- Department of History, Philosophy, Anthropology? → Not natural.
If you get “yes” to most of the first three, you’ve got a natural science on your hands. Anything that consistently fails those checks lands in the humanities, social sciences, or interdisciplinary zones Not complicated — just consistent..
Common Mistakes / What Most People Get Wrong
Mistake #1: Assuming All “Science” Is Natural
People love to slap “science” on anything that sounds technical. Here's the thing — “Data science” and “computer science” are often lumped together with physics, but they’re actually applied fields that draw on mathematics—a formal science, not a natural one. The distinction matters when you’re sorting university departments or grant categories.
Mistake #2: Treating Psychology as Pure Natural Science
Psychology uses experiments, brain imaging, and statistical analysis, so it looks like a natural science. Think about it: yet a big chunk of the field also relies on qualitative interviews and case studies—methods more common in the social sciences. That dual nature confuses many newcomers.
Mistake #3: Overlooking Interdisciplinary Programs
Environmental studies, for example, blends ecology (natural) with policy (social). If you see a program titled “Environmental Science,” don’t automatically assume it’s purely natural; check the curriculum. Courses on law, ethics, or economics tip the scale away from the natural‑science core.
Mistake #4: Confusing “Natural History” With “Natural Science”
Natural history is a descriptive tradition—think museum collections and field notes. That's why it’s valuable, but it doesn’t always employ the hypothesis‑testing cycle that defines modern natural science. So a “natural history museum” isn’t a lab, even though the word “natural” is in both.
Mistake #5: Ignoring the Role of Mathematics
Mathematics is the language of natural sciences, but it’s a formal science, not a natural one. You can have a mathematician who never steps foot in a lab, yet their work underpins physics and chemistry. Mixing up the two leads to sloppy classifications.
Not obvious, but once you see it — you'll see it everywhere.
Practical Tips: How to Classify a Subject Quickly
- Write the main research question on a sticky note. If you can replace a word with “how” and still make sense, you’re leaning natural.
- Count the number of lab‑based courses in the program’s core requirements. More than half? Likely natural.
- Scan the bibliography. Lots of journal articles from Nature, Science, Physical Review? Natural. Lots of monographs from university presses? Probably humanities.
- Ask a faculty member from the department. A quick email can save you hours of digging.
- Check the funding sources for recent projects. NSF, DOE, NASA = natural; NEH, AHRC, private foundations = not natural.
FAQ
Q: Is archaeology a natural science?
A: Mostly not. While it uses dating techniques and sometimes DNA analysis, its primary goal is to interpret past human behavior, placing it in the humanities/social‑science hybrid zone.
Q: Where does computer science belong?
A: It’s a formal science. It shares the logical rigor of mathematics but doesn’t study the natural world directly, so it’s not a natural science.
Q: Can sociology be considered a natural science?
A: Generally no. Sociology studies societies and relationships, relying on surveys and theory rather than controlled experiments on physical phenomena Surprisingly effective..
Q: What about biochemistry?
A: Definitely a natural science. It blends chemistry and biology to explain the chemical processes of life, using lab work and quantitative analysis Less friction, more output..
Q: Does economics count as a natural science?
A: Not in the traditional sense. Economics employs mathematical models, but it studies human decision‑making, making it a social science Small thing, real impact..
So, which of the following is not considered a natural science? Anything that centers on human meaning, culture, or formal logic rather than the material workings of the universe. History, philosophy, sociology, literature, law, and most of the humanities fall into that bucket Simple as that..
When you’re sorting disciplines, keep the checklist handy, stay aware of those common pitfalls, and you’ll avoid the “science‑or‑not” confusion that trips up even seasoned scholars Easy to understand, harder to ignore. Still holds up..
That’s it—next time you see a list of subjects, you’ll know exactly where to draw the line. Happy categorizing!
Beyond the “Natural” vs. “Non‑Natural” Divide
While the binary classification is helpful, many disciplines now sit comfortably in the interstitial space, borrowing tools from the natural sciences while addressing questions that are fundamentally human. Scholars in these areas often collaborate across departmental lines, share grant mechanisms, and publish in both natural‑science journals and humanities‑oriented venues. Day to day, these hybrid fields—such as cognitive neuroscience, computational biology, and environmental ethics—illustrate that the boundaries of knowledge are porous. Recognizing this fluidity is essential for students, administrators, and funding agencies alike.
Some disagree here. Fair enough.
The Role of Interdisciplinary Centers
Universities increasingly create interdisciplinary research centers that explicitly aim to resolve the “natural‑science” conundrum. So the Center for the Study of Biological Complexity, for instance, brings together physicists, chemists, and biologists to tackle emergent phenomena in living systems. Similarly, the Institute for the Humanities and the Social Sciences fosters dialogue between philosophers, historians, and data scientists. These hubs exemplify a pragmatic approach: rather than forcing a discipline into a pre‑existing box, they let the research questions dictate the collaboration.
Implications for Funding and Evaluation
Funding bodies have begun to reflect this nuance. The National Science Foundation’s “Cross‑cutting Research” program explicitly seeks projects that merge natural‑science methods with social‑scientific or humanities perspectives. That said, meanwhile, the National Endowment for the Humanities continues to support the rigorous textual analysis of medieval manuscripts, acknowledging that such work requires a distinct set of skills and standards. For faculty, understanding where their work fits can influence grant proposals, tenure dossiers, and even the choice of peer reviewers.
Teaching the Difference
In the classroom, instructors can use the “lab‑based vs. theory‑based” heuristic to help students deal with the landscape. Plus, a biology course that emphasizes lab techniques and fieldwork is a clear natural‑science class, whereas a course on the philosophy of biology—despite its subject matter—remains firmly within the humanities. This distinction matters for course catalogs, accreditation, and even student credit transfer.
Conclusion
The distinction between natural and non‑natural sciences is not merely an academic exercise; it shapes curricula, funding, research culture, and the very way we frame knowledge. By focusing on empirical methods, laboratory work, and quantitative analysis, natural sciences probe the material world with a rigor that is distinct from the interpretive, contextual, and often qualitative focus of the humanities and social sciences. Yet, as interdisciplinary collaboration becomes the norm, rigid boundaries give way to richer, more integrated approaches.
When you encounter a new discipline, ask yourself: Does the core of its inquiry depend on manipulating and measuring physical phenomena, or does it rely on interpreting symbols, narratives, or social structures? The answer will guide you to the appropriate classification and help you work through the academic ecosystem more effectively.
So, the next time you’re sorting a list of subjects, remember that the “natural” label is more than a label—it’s a reflection of the methods, tools, and questions that define a field. And in an era where the frontiers of science increasingly overlap, a nuanced understanding of this distinction will serve scholars, students, and institutions alike.
