Anda di halaman 1dari 2

The methods and procedures of the natural sciences are inappropriate for studying human behaviour.

There was always a big debate lead between those who believe that sociology is a science and that it could use methods and procedures of natural sciences to investigate human behaviour and those who state that socioology is not a science and that it cannot apply scientific methods to investigation. In order to understand how far sociology can be a science it is important to understand that sicences rest on emphiricism and objectivity and that scientific methods rely on on rigorous and disciplined collection of facts and the logical explanation of them. Positivists argue that socilology could use scientific methods in studying of human behaviour. The concept of positivism is simliar to concept of emericism. It is parallel to natural sciences seeking to discover patterned and regular events in social world. Auguste Comte, the founder of positivist school, proposed that there were three discernable stages in the evolution of the human thought. First was theological, second metaphysica, and third positive stage. He wanted to take the third stage further and state that systematic colleciton of facts and research for laws shold be limited to natural world. He argued that everything, including society obeys law of behaviour and that it is possible to study it using rigorous procedures to obtain emphirical evidence of social facts. This view further indicates that society is consisted of patterns and correlated parts which can be drawn out and that society can be studied in one purely objective manner. On the other hand, though scientific research on human behaviour is potentially valuable and important, it can be dangerous and harmfull to the people who are being studied. This arises serious ethical problems. Only by putting people in the artificial environment and isolating them from their everyday life is very questionable to be ethical as it may harm participants phsically or mentally. Such harm is described in Darkness In El Dorado: How Scientists and Journalists Devastated the Amazon (Tierney,2000) which accused antropologists for administrating unethical study among the indigenous population of Amazon rainforest. Scientific methods of investigation raise up the problems of prectical nature too. If humans are taken away from their natural environment to be studies and even if they are studied in their own environment but are acknowledged of their participation they will surely act and behave diferently, thus invading the validity and reliability of the results making them and the whole investigation useless and time wasting. In addition to this, interpretavists argue that society cannot be studied in the same way as objects in natural sciences. Unlike inert objectis, people engage in meaningful interaction. They state that society should be looked at from the micro scale and entail detailed study of what people say, do and think moment by moment as they go about their everyday life. As being

developed form phenomenology they deny that social behavior is determined by external forces which are byond human control unlike atoms and molecules. They refuse the idea of structured society and state that people already live in that world, and each have individual assumptions of it and therefore they cannot be studied using objective procedures and methods of investigation. Therefore even thoug different approaches use different methods of investigation and each of them have their advantages and disadvantages, it is obvious that non-scientific methods better apply in studying of human behaviour in ethical and practical terms.