Positivist Dispute

There is an on-going debate within the philosophy of social science, regarding the relationship between the natural and social sciences. This discussion stems from opposing viewpoints as to how studies of the world around us should be conducted. The job of science is to explain and make predictions regarding our realties, and researchers in the natural and social sciences have distinct views regarding that method. The natural sciences are focused on the causal nature of phenomena and they believe that the best way to discover these causes is through quantitative, analytical and impartial studies. The belief is that this brings them as close to the "reality of truth" as possible within an experimental environment. Social science theory on the other hand, deems the natural sciences as clinical and dismissive of meaningful explanations. Societal studies should involve reflective interpretations. It is apparent that all social researchers agree that the social sciences should be studied; Disagreement occurs regarding the methods chosen to study it. The United Nations is an entity that was created because all of its members agreed on the attainment of world peace and harmony. Problems have arisen regarding the pathways to achieve those goals, since every country has defined its own beliefs regarding policies and procedures. Likewise the social sciences face similar challenges from the differences in the use of language in studies, and how the resulting conclusions are communicated to others. Many scholars in the natural sciences believe that the social sciences are methodically similar. But can social science fit into a naturalist attitude? Can natural methods really benefit social sciences? Can there be a unity of science? How can hard" empiricism work for the study of a human condition which is "dynamic" in nature? How is the study of politics affected by these questions? This essay looks at these topics through the lenses of positivism, a study that embraced the views of the natural sciences.

Sir Francis Bacon once said, " To study nature you must consult nature, not Aristotle". The realist perspective of positivism fulfills Bacon's request. Positivism places particular emphasis on the sense experience of observable facts. The Vienna Circle, a group of positivists from the early 20th century, dismissed metaphysics as not having an important role in research. They believed that all statements could be reduced to a definitive mimetic, or that is to say, an actual reflection of human experience. But how can we measure experience? The answer according to a tenet of positivist theory is through empirical analysis, changing the observable into the verifiable. Emile Durkheim, a positivist from the late 18th Century, believed that the only way to measure science was by separating the individual from the State. His work, "Suicide", established empiricism within sociology, which would describe phenomena strictly in sociological terms. He was only able to study suicide rates because, after the French Revolution, the French began taking records of all their people. Thereby creating accurate masses of social data that allowed for population studies. This turned human subjects into objects. Facts became the only thing of value. But is this true? How can facts be completely removed from the individual? Is there not some sort of relationship occurring between the phenomena and the experimenter? Durkheim's conjecture also suffered from the problems associated with induction. Theory was dependent on limited observations and limited evidence. How can a theory be definitive if it's restricted?

Karl Popper tried to solve problems of induction by establishing that science doesn't involve induction. Science wants to study behavior in a portion of the world and a hypothesis is the provision for gaining scientific status. In order to replace induction, Popper created the theory of Falsification. If bold propositions could be repeatedly challenged, then it would be considered highly falsifiable. Falsification takes full advantage of the fact that the falsity of a universal statement can be deduced from singular statements. Essentially a statement is considered meaningful if it can be verified logically or by sense experience. Logic can only show something therefore, with the use of experience, indicating they both rely on each other. What if logic and sense experience disagree on the truth of a statement? What you know is that your methodology is bad, which is meaningful. If logic proved P, but observing proved ~P, the meaning of P is then either P or ~P. Does this make our sense experience wrong?

Observation always wins out over logic, because the use of logic requires observation. People are flawed and therefore are fallible. Is logic fallible or is it our execution of logic fallible? Hypothesizes were viewed as, "falsifiable if there exists a logically possible observation statementÐ'...that is inconsistent with it, which, if established as true, would falsify the hypothesis."

Language is the key that unlocks the mystery of the debate between the natural and social sciences. Methods created to study the universe are actually methods that study the use of language. It is through words, particularly definitions, that we create perceptions through which we view the world. Everything takes on a meaning depending on the language you use to describe it. It is here that the natural sciences lose their argument of objective research, for the use of language itself is subjective. Our selections of words, the way we argue our viewpoints, are all part of our personal experience. Just by saying the word "objective", scientists are exposing their perceptions. Positivism at first placed emphasis on one universal language of science that would be the only logical way to explain the world. However, under pressure of "empirical significance" this was abandoned and the post-positivism stage occurred. A new idea that scientific statements should be intersubjectively verifiable took hold. Wittgenstein, a social linguist, threw away his former theory for a new one. He subjectively decided to pursue the study of a different method, becoming consumed with language of interpretation. Everything takes on a meaning depending on the language you use to describe it. Begs to question, how "static" theories are. Perhaps science is more social than we think? Natural and social sciences have things in common. Social scientists are part of the social. How can people remove themselves from object?

Science is about "true" statements. For example 1+1=2. You cannot dispute this fact for it is universal. 1 and 2 and + and = are all established within the language of science. Gravity, H2O, the properties of a triangle-SAS, SSA, SSS, is all givens.