Can social sciences have a non-subject -related axiomatic foundation? Why not?


Interpretation is always relative to subjective interpretation. Which is not similar in natural sciences. In natural sciences it's possible to attain an observation that's the same for different subjects (or, at least, even if it's not physically the same, due to differences in senses, it's consistently demonstrateable and/or agreeable as such). In soc. sci. it can be speculated that there will be more bias depending on the orientation of the observer. Thus observers necessarily cannot observe the same thing.

  • It seems to me that Islamic society (at its best) has a non-subject related axiomatic foundation. The idea is that society should be organised so as to be amenable to a life of surrender of the ego, the axiom being that all is Al-Lah (the One),or an axiom of Unity. Not sure if this would qualify but maybe. . . . . – user20253 Apr 13 '19 at 14:22
  • That we can not have the same degree of consensus on social observations that we have on physical, or even biological, ones is presumably explained by the complexity and vagueness of the basic vocabulary involved. As it increases from physics to chemistry to biology to anthropology to psychology to sociology, the degree of consensus decreases. – Conifold Apr 14 '19 at 9:56
  • Personally i see no reason why social science cannot be like any other science. In fact I believe it is. But a truly scientific study of society would be incredibly contentious. What for example, if it showed that religion was damaging. Or that capitalism was damaging. What if it upset the status quo? I believe people are studying this, but.the public probably aren't getting the memo's. It sounds tin foil hat, but only if you have never tried to really imagine a better world, and have never read Orwell. – Richard Apr 16 '19 at 0:02
  • @Richard Yeah, but that would suggest that it should be classified perhaps further than "science" (which is too broad). The problem that this question posits is related to mixing of "foundations of science" (because all sciences use the concept 'science'). Thus e.g. "economic science" can be perceived to "claim legitimacy" based on "physical science", even if their methodologies and verificationism would be grossly different. Thus I'm not sure if they all "deserve to be called science". Or whether it could be reasonable to call them "soft sciences". How about "social semi-science"? – mavavilj Apr 16 '19 at 8:04
  • I personally think that "economic science" is definitely a misapplication of the concept of "science". It does not fulfill enough of scientific method IMO. Thus I would prefer to call it "economic semi-science". en.wiktionary.org/wiki/semiscientific I wonder if other people would agree with this and start to use the term "semiscience" for "partially scientific study fields that are weaker than physical sciences". – mavavilj Apr 16 '19 at 8:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.