Introduction
It has long been questioned whether social and political sciences are genuinely scientific in character (Kellstedt and Whitten, 2009, 3). Some scholars disagree that these disciplines are genuine sciences. The current questions are thus: because social and political sciences deal with people who are so interchangeable, can scientific inquiries, and thus statements, be made? Or are such assertions conceivable since social and political sciences are founded on broad concepts and shared ideologies? This essay will look at how philosophers and scholars have approached these contentious issues. It begins by introducing the concepts and theories that underpin political science. Addressing this inevitably leads to the comparison of social and political sciences with the natural sciences, and analyzing data from scientific methodologies. It concludes by stating that it is possible to make scientific statements about social\/political relationships, to some degree.
Philosophical Perspectives
Scholars and philosophers have argued on whether political and social sciences are scientific by nature. Auguste Comte asserts that effort of unifying natural and social science require some agreement on the method and aim of science. In his theory of positivism, Comte argues that all concepts, ideas and theorize that cannot be verified empirically must be removed from scientific explanation (Kellstedt and Whitten, 2009, 4). Such theories that are not empirically proven must be excluded from science because science aims at prediction and not merely understanding noumenal realm. Science generates prediction through the uncovering law of successions such as Newton and gravity laws. Comte argues that scientific methods should be unified and that both social and natural sciences should adopt a positivist approach. Positivism advocated for verification of meaning and attempted to translate the unobservable to observables (Marsh and Stoker, 2002, 64). However, antipositivism dispelled this claim on the ground that it was impractical and only led to the abolishment of successful scientific theories.
Scientific Methodology
A research method is \u2018scientific\u2019 if it aims to gather, understand and predict occurrences in the natural world (Marsh and Stoker, 2002, 123). Natural science uses hypothesis and scientific methods to generalize theories of causation. Similarly, both Political and Social Sciences adhere and are shaped by this underlying rationale in an attempt to explain the human development and behavior. Political and social science analyses varying human behavior (variables) and those that does not differ (constants) using the scientific method to provide an explanation or general theory of human behavior (Marsh and Stoker, 2002, 90). Even though these disciplines often emulate the natural sciences, by establishing generalized theories of causation through hypotheses and applying a scientific method of research, it is ultimately the policy makers that determine how best to use such knowledge and whether to set aside any moral values and\/political concerns. This, therefore, limits the extent in which, it is possible to make scientific statements about social\/political relationships.
Explanation of Events
Furthermore, natural science, political and social science all aim at providing causal relationship or explanation of events as seen in the social and natural world (Green, 2005, 97). Natural science would want to provide an explanation for the collision between comets. These casual statements lead to developing of law-like regularities that govern the natural occurrences. These rules may include gravity and Newton laws. Similarly, Max Weber assert that the aim of social\/political science is to provide a rich account of human values and causal explanation of the social phenomenon (Behnegar, 2003, 56). Thus, both natural science and political\/social science provide an account of natural and social phenomenon. However, natural science only provides a factual statement about a condition or event. For example, natural science can state that competition is inherent traits of humans. However, it may not provide further explanation whether competition and violence are bad or good. Similarly, natural science can help to determine whether political, social or material condition leads to democracy but it cannot tell whether democracy itself is good.
Conclusion
In conclusion, even though there are areas where natural science and social\/political science does not explicitly relate they have more in common. They differ in the application of the outcomes and the explanation of events. The presented evidence demonstrates that it is accurate to conclude that it is possible to make scientific statements about social\/political relationships, to some degree. Both political\/social science and natural science use hypothesis and scientific methods to generalize theories of causation. They also both aim at providing a causal explanation of social and natural events.
References
Behnegar, N. (2003). Leo Strauss, Max Weber, and the scientific study of politics. Chicago, Ill, University of Chicago Press.
Green, D.P. (2005) ‘On Evidence-Based Political Science,’ Daedalus, 134(3): 96-100.
Kellstedt, P., and Whitten, G. (2009). The fundamentals of political science research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marsh, D. and Stoker, G. (2010). Theory and methods in political science. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
