Social And Natural Sciences - Essay Example

Social And Natural Sciences Introduction The first and foremost role of positivism is objectivity. In spite of numerous interpretations of positivism, it is very important to realize a crucial component of this philosophical methodology. August Comte, a developer, a founder and a father of Positivism claimed that “positive” knowledge means “scientific” knowledge (Comte, 2003). In order to reach positive knowledge, it is relevant to deal with the observable facts. Neither mythology nor religion can present a true nature of knowledge. Therefore, a further discussion about the difference between social and natural sciences is provided in terms of positivism. The main difference between these sciences is seen in the object of their discussion and research. With regards to positivism, it is more relevant to explore new phenomena and analyze new objects on the basis of positive knowledge, which is based on observable facts. Therefore, social sciences should integrate logical principles for their researches; otherwise they would obtain irrelevant results. Logic and mathematical knowledge is more relevant to natural sciences, where the objects are more observable and determined. Positivism in the field of science A great contribution of positivism into philosophical and methodological explorative methods is considered further on the example of social and natural sciences. In sociology positivism is the core paradigmatic methodology. Science and inquiry are two basic pillars of positivism. Still, it is very important to solve the major problem of social sciences, which concerns results finding on the basis of complex species research and study. The roots of Positivism can be traced in the French Enlightenment (the abovementioned philosopher Auguste Comte is the founder of Positivism). The philosopher suggested combining natural sciences principles with social sciences (Delanty, 2005). Comte claimed that religion was conquered by science. It was much important those times to refer to facts and laws, than to suppositions and considerations. Scientific knowledge is outlined by Comte in the following way: stage of fictitious, metaphysical and scientific knowledge. The last stage of knowledge, scientific knowledge, is preferential for Comte. The development of all other stages, if successfully implemented, would result in scientific knowledge emergence. These stages of knowledge can be also sought in Empiricism. This science is based on observable facts, claiming that logical and mathematical roots are on the background of the facts. The main principle of positivism should be also found in “positive” information, which can be obtained from a positive experience. Therefore, a methodological paradigm of positivism consists of science and inquiry. An empirical exploration is of crucial importance for any science. Thus, from positivist perspective it can be claimed that social phenomena are not distributed in accordance with certain or specific types, where the members of these types are homogenous (Cassell, 2002). In other words, positivist vision or methodology implemented in social sciences is not relevant to the fullest extent. Sociological phenomena are of inhomogeneous nature. For example, a structure of any sociological object or phenomena cannot be considered in accordance with specific features or characteristics, which are relevant at all times. Moreover, social processes and generalizations cannot be characterized simultaneously in accordance with homogenous characteristics. For sociological sciences it is of crucial importance to formulate specific hypotheses focused on special sociological events or imagination. A development of sociological theory is one possible way to develop explanations concerning sociological events or objects. Therefore, positivism is often criticized as irrelevant methodology applied for social inquiry. Social science requires development of special approaches focused on “contingency, heterogeneity, path-dependence, and particularity corresponding to the plasticity of human institutions and human agency” (Delaney, 2003). Moreover, a various nature of sociological researchers referring to different aspects of sociology, comprising cultural/social anthropology, communication studies, social policy, political science etc requires a multi-faceted research methodology and philosophical background. Sociological objects for study also differ: from census data obtained from hundreds of thousands of human beings to integral analysis of an individual’s social life (Delanty, 2005). Consequently, with this respect the use of positivism in social sciences refers to the great philosopher August Comte. The philosopher suggested developing a research methodology basing on exact facts and not on speculation. Social sciences are on their way to successful research in case not pure considerations, but scientific laws are implied. Therefore, it is more relevant to correlate ideas of positivism with methodological methods of natural sciences. Referring to the fact that scientific knowledge is the highest form of knowledge, natural sciences study measurable and observable objects. If to compare knowledge of sociological sciences and that of natural sciences, it will be clearly seen that the former science deals with imperfect knowledge, because it is hard to observe and measure studying objects of sociology. Thus, in accordance with positivist knowledge: “we must study, measure, and otherwise directly observe our subject matter more closely. Indeed, if we cannot do so, we must assume that the purported subject matter does not even exist” (Delanty, 2005). In other words, it is easier for positivists to question a true nature of social science knowledge, than of natural science knowledge. This phrase may seem rather intricate for antagonists of Positivism, but we can surely claim that there was no intention for positivists to diminish the role of social science. Vice versa, they worked in favor of social science knowledge perfection by natural sciences methods integration. With regards to this fact, the basis of a common nature between social and natural sciences is evident: “In science, the term natural science refers to a rational approach to the study of the universe, which is understood as obeying rules or law of natural origin (Edge, 2001). The term natural science is also used to distinguish those fields that use the scientific method to study nature from the social sciences, which use the scientific method to study human behavior and society; and from the formal sciences, such as mathematics and logic, which use a different methodology” (Edge, 2001). This quotation is a perfect evidence of interconnectedness between social and natural sciences. Still, this suggestion is often criticized by the proponents of Positivism. They claim that no abstract ideas exist and there is a crucial necessity to back up evidences by observable facts. Experimental experiences of the humanity are collected and analyzed or classified with implementation of statistical or mathematical methods. Nevertheless, there are opponents of Positivism, who claim that they have more arguments against science in comparison with supportive facts of it. To achieve knowledge about the world, it is necessary to implement a scientific approach to knowledge acquiring. Conclusion We may argue and claim that the natural science was created by people by the society and the developers of science are people. It is not necessary to reduce science to sociology or to natural sciences, because the outcome would be self-defeating (Williams, 2001). It is better for either social or natural science to integrate approaches of Positivism, because the “science remains the science” thanks to the facts, observable evidences and proven truths it operates. Consequently, positivist paradigm is an integral part of scientific knowledge and its methodological basis should not be restricted by comparison and differentiating between social and natural sciences. The main purpose of Positivism is to obtain positive information about the world’s knowledge and this is the basic principle for any science. Works cited 1. Cassell, J 2002. Perturbing the System: "hard Science," "soft Science," and Social Science, the Anxiety and Madness of Method. Human Organization, 61(2), 177+. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5037726056 2. Comte, A 2003. A General View of Positivism. Free Inquiry, 23, 45. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002028233 3. Delaney, T 2003. Auguste Comte: Proponent of Positivism and Evolutionary Thought. Free Inquiry, 23, 44+. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002025367 4. Delanty, G 2005. Social Science: Philosophical and Methodological Foundations (2nd ed.). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=116401599 5. Edge, H 2001. Readings in the Philosophy of Science: From Positivism to Postmodernism. The Journal of Parapsychology, 65(1), 96. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001040062 6. Williams, M 2000. Science and Social Science: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103334890 Read More