Research about the Introduction of Social Science

Social science, any discipline or branch of science that deals with human behaviour in its social and
cultural aspects. The social sciences include cultural (or social) anthropology, sociology, social
psychology, political science, and economics. Also frequently included are social and economic
geography and those areas of education that deal with the social contexts of learning and the relation of
the school to the social order (see also educational psychology). Historiography is regarded by many as a
social science, and certain areas of historical study are almost indistinguishable from work done in the
social sciences. Most historians, however, consider history as one of the humanities. It is generally best,
in any case, to consider history as marginal to the humanities and social sciences, since its insights and
techniques pervade both. The study of comparative law may also be regarded as a part of the social
sciences, although it is ordinarily pursued in schools of law rather than in departments or schools
containing most of the other social sciences.

What is the method (or methods) of social science?

Research is scientific if and only if it follows a procedure known as scientific method. A received view of
this method has evolved in the seventeenth century as a synthesis of ideas of Bacon, Boyle, and
Newton. Roughly, scientific method consists of indiscriminate observations of regularities, gathering
information on repeatable phenomena, and using it as a sound basis for theorizing. Scientific method is,
then, a talisman for success. Accordingly, researchers strive to show that their work conforms to
scientific method—to the point of distortion. Yet, famously, all guarantees of success in research are
worthless. Plato declared that the validity of ideas depends on their pedigree. Tradition offers only two
views on the source of ideas: It is intuition—intellectualism, apriorism (Plato)— or it is observation—
empiricism, inductivism (Aristotle). Question: Where should thinking or observing begin? No answer.
Reliance on both thought and experience as sources of knowledge is impossible, as they may mismatch;
yet their judicious use as procedures is possible: Apriorism admits experience as hints; inductivism
admits hypotheses as temporary scaffolding.

The promise of success that scientific method grants depends on the unlearning of prejudices. Sir Francis
Bacon, the father of the modern scientific method and a precursor of the Enlightenment, was the first to
realize that preconceived opinions distort observation, as they invariably confirm themselves; reliable
observations come from unbiased minds. So he recommended relinquishing all preconceptions. This is
radicalism; it bespeaks utter rationality. The classical rationalists of the Age of Reason viewed humans as
utterly rational, with reason as free of local (individual) differences. Their theories ignored these
differences; their economic theory concerned only free trade; their political theory deemed the state as
taking care of the contracts, including those between ruler and subject; religion they viewed as private,
independent of any established church. Social researchers thus viewed individual conduct as purely
rational and as yielding to individually endorsed motives exclusively. Thus, their views on scientific
method embody a view of humanity as rational and the individual as preceding society.
The received view of scientific method remained excessively rationalist, radical, ahistorical, individualist,
and liberal. To date it dominates the natural sciences, economics, and behaviorist and Freudian
psychology. After the failure of the French Revolution, the dominant view within social studies had
history as its paradigm, and its agenda largely aimed at shunning radicalism by presenting political
theory historically, deprecating democracy and science. As views on scientific method differed, so views
differed as to whether social studies start with individuals and reach the study of the social whole or vice
versa. This was then a backlash against radicalism. Its prime initiator was Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel,
who traced the roots of French revolutionary terror to the Enlightenment’s dismissal of social authority
as resting on prejudice. Scientific method is inapplicable to society, he declared, since societies have
historical roots; there is no social prediction even though nations are subject to historical laws. Schelling,
Hegel, and others, developed new methods, variants of which some twentieth-century thinkers
embraced, especially Henri Bergson and Edmund Husserl. Following Hegel’s claim that the methods of
the natural and social sciences diverge, Wilhelm Dilthey suggested that whereas the natural sciences
employ deductive explanations, the social sciences employ empathy. (Karl Popper endorsed this
distinction, incidentally: His theory of explanation—situational logic—encompasses both models, and
allows for reference to both individuals and institutions.) Hegel’s methodology is still popular among
those who ignore scientific method. Conspicuous among his twentieth-century followers are Gabriel
Marcel, Paul Ricouer, Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Jacque Derrida.
They all adopted variants of Husserl’s method. Heidegger preferred poetic truth to scientific truth.
Gadamer endorsed Hegel’s objection to the Enlightenment movement’s sweeping dismissal of
prejudice. He recommended the study of texts, not of facts, hoping that certitude is achievable there,
with wider conclusions. Derrida objected: There is no one certain way to read a text. Gadamer was
adamant, expressing preference for Aristotle’s text on physics over modern ones. Sartre first accepted
scientific method and endorsed behaviorism. As he was later impressed with psychoanalysis, he gave up
both. (Incidentally, Popper considered both violations of the rules of scientific method, as he rejected
the received view.)

Hegel also influenced adherents to science, including Henri de St. Simon, Auguste Comte, John Stuart
Mill, and Karl Marx. They sought the scientific historical laws that permit predictions. Marx stressed that
scientific method sanctify his predictions, rendering them incontestable. (Not all his followers share his
respect for science.) Does the use of scientific method validate Comte’s theory of the three stages of
history or Marx’s view of history as propelled by the class struggle? Is dissent a challenge to their
scientific credentials? Or did prejudice distort their use of scientific method? These are difficult
questions.

William Whewell, a significant nineteenth-century transitional figure, dismissed the fear of prejudice. He
contested Bacon’s proposal to empty our minds of preconceived opinions, declaring all ideas
preconceived. He trusted rigorous tests to eliminate error. Bacon promised that empty minds will follow
scientific method and produce true theories; Whewell denied that: We need hypotheses; occasionally,
researchers hit upon true ones and verify them empirically, he said. His view won popularity among
physicists while social thinkers followed Mill.
Marx challenged the individualist, ahistorical economics with his historical prediction: As markets must
be increasingly unstable, capitalism will give way to social-ism—probably through civil war. At the end of
the nineteenth century, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber, known as the fathers of modern sociology,
circumvented him and shifted the debate away from history back to the other question that Hegel had
raised: Which is primary, the individual or the social whole? Their writings on society and on scientific
method ignore historical laws.

Durkheim’s starting point was the claim that some "social facts" are observable (such as conformity to
laws).

This is hard to comprehend, but clearly, he wanted to broaden classical individualist methodology to
make it recognize collective entities. He steered between Hegel’s view of social forces and Marx’s view
of economic forces. He considered national cultures to be the glue that maintains collectives; in
particular, religion is society’s representation or celebration of itself.

Durkheim valued individual contributions to culture, as he admired science. Does his view of culture
allow for this? He left this question open. Hence, as a response to Hegel, his theory is incomplete. His
attention lay elsewhere: He insisted that a culture coheres with its society. He invented functionalism,
the view that social wholes are coherent. A clear counterexample to this is crime: It is dysfunctional. He
suggested that crime has a function: to remind society of the law. This does not block the
counterexample: The need for violent reminders bespeaks incoherence. Once functionalism
incorporates dysfunctional aspects, it becomes trivial and abandons coherence. Durkheim was inspired
by Claude Bernard’s observation that cold-blooded animals are more adapted to the environment but
less energetic than warm-blooded ones. He applied this to the division of labor: High specialization
enables a striking worker to bring society to a halt and forces it to cohere (organic solidarity). This is too
vague to be open to criticism.

Weber rejected "one-sided materialism"—in allusion to Marx—and ascribed social values to ideas. His
studies identify typical value-systems of typical members of various classes and societies. Unlike classical
individuals who represent humanity in general, Weber’s typical individuals represent subcollectives. His
theory of scientific method thus steers between classical individualism and collectivism. To emphasize
his reluctance to say whether societies are real, he called it "individualism of method."

Georg Simmel (a contemporary of Durkheim and Weber, but influential only after World War II)
suggested that individual and society are equally primary, so that conflict is never totally avoidable. Karl
Popper suggested considered action as strictly individual but within social contexts—situational logic—
thus achieving a view that is in the traditional individualist mode, without being radical. This opens the
road for new kinds of explanation— especially for actions aiming at institutional reform.

Popper’s suggestion rests on his groundbreaking description of scientific theory as (not proven but)
testable, namely, refutable. For success, this is necessary but insufficient: There is no guarantee.
Scientific truth is then not the truth, but the best available approximation to it. This closes the debate
comparing the rules for natural and social studies. For explanations in the social sciences to be refutable,
they should center on individual actions.
Science is now increasingly seen as the search for answers to interesting questions that are open to
criticism.

Another development is of the systemist outlook: Both individual and society are systems of sorts
(Mario Bunge). How is action at all possible? This question is outside the domain of social studies; these
take actions as given and center on their unintended consequences (Hayek)—especially actions
intended to improve society. Systemism is incomplete without a theory of scientific method. Some
variant of Popper’s theory is an obvious candidate. This, however, is a matter for future discussions of
scientific method adequate for social studies. The starting point of any such study has to be an
examination of the history and sociology of the social sciences, especially of the question, what do we
owe to the diverse school of thought of the past and to their august members?

Does social science use the same methods as natural science? If not, should it aspire to? Or are the
methods appropriate to social inquiry fundamentally different from those of natural science?

Science can be described generally as an effort to understand, explain and make predictions about the
world using distinct methods of inquiry in an attempt to construct theories. Science can be classified into
two main branches known as natural science and social science. Natural science is a branch of science
that deals with the natural world whereas social science is a branch of science that deals with human
society and social relationships. Thus, the main difference between natural science and social science is
that natural science studies natural events whereas social science studies the human society.

Is scientific investigation of the social world even possible – or desirable?

They are also skeptical about their results, so they repeat their work and have their findings confirmed
by other scientists. Is sociological research scientific? By definition, sociological research is the scientific
means of acquiring information about various aspects of society and social behavior.