{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02457002457002457, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.331606217616581, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Measuring man: some problems of method.

In the eighteenth century, natural history used the methods of observation and classification to study animals, plants and fossils. But at the beginning of the nineteenth century the new discipline of biology replaced natural history and instead of examining the appearances of things, attempted to grasp their underlying realities. Further, biology identified a new object for study in the form of 'Man'. Despite difficulties in identifying Man's place in the old domain of Nature (exemplified by Darwin's solution to the problem and the major debates that surrounded it), the sciences of human biology made great strides during the nineteenth century. However, human biology was only one of the new 'sciences of Man' that emerged to address the question 'How to know Man?'. Others included anthropology, psychology and sociology, but their development was hampered by lack of appropriate methodologies. The existing methods ranged from the observation and classification of the old natural history to the more classical hypotheticodeductive method of the natural sciences, but while these methods suited the biological sciences, they posed major problems for the human sciences.