The Theory of Positivism in Science - Essay Example

Science and its Discontents Positivism is the philosophy that true knowledge is scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge can only be determined through theories proven by a strictly defined scientific method. This is an adequate philosophy for sociology, if used with other philosophies for sociology. Alone positivism would leave too many questions unanswered. Positivism, in theory, is based on science and proving theories through a scientific approach. Basically positivism can be defined by one formula: true knowledge=scientific knowledge. When dealing with philosophical discussions that deal with science or numbers, positivism makes for a logical argument. However, when talking about psychology, ethics, and other abstract philosophical discussions, positivism makes little or no sense. For example, Freud wrote about the ego, superego, and the id as parts of an individuals self. Although Freud observed and talked to many patients, these three parts of the self cannot be proven scientifically. Another example is ethics. Different ethics are observed across diverse cultures, with no real determination on right or wrong. These issues cannot be proven conclusively with a scientific method. In order to understand positivism, scientific knowledge needs to be examined. Scientific knowledge is considered to be true. However “If this was the case then there would be no fundamental disagreements” (Smith, 1998:12). Since science changes over time, improving with technology and new discoveries, scientific knowledge is an ever evolving process. For example, the earth was thought to be flat. Travellers went miles and miles believing the earth was flat, because of appearance. Now scientific knowledge states that the earth is round. The true knowledge in this situation is undeniable. The earth is round. When using positivism alone, too many questions remain unanswered for lack of scientific knowledge. Thus the scientific knowledge is not always perfect, because scientific knowledge does not always equal true knowledge. Science is changeable by improving technology, but also by diverse cultural and historical aspects. Smith (1998: 13) explains: Science, as a social practice, is situated in two ways: knowledge is situated socially through the cultural and institutional life of a given community. knowledge is situated historically by examining the shared traditions of knowledge productions. Knowledge continually expands and grows with each generations knowledge being built on the previous generations achievements. Positivism is an adequate philosophy for some parts of sociology, but not all. Positivism looks for what all good philosophies look for; true knowledge. Since humans do not have the power for an all knowing knowledge, their true knowledge lays in the search for true knowledge. True knowledge can only be uncovered grains at a time, not in one huge revelation. When philosophers realise this truth, the search for true knowledge begins. References Benton, T. and Craib, I. (2001) ‘Philosophy and the social sciences’, pp. 1-7, in Philosophy of Social Science: The Philosophical Foundations of Social Thought. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Smith, M. J. (1998) ‘What does it mean for knowledge to be situated?’, pp. 12-15, and ‘Science, observation and experimentation’, pp. 47-53, in Social Science in Question. London: Sage. A Map to Ways of Knowing Benton and Craib (2001:3) questions “How should we view the face of continuing disagreement among social scientists about basics?” This disagreement is a permanent fact of life that should be welcomed. Disagreement, whether about the basics or more complicated aspects of social issues, can help a social scientist to grow intellectually. Only when a social scientist comes to the point of ignoring or dismissing opposing views, does the the disagreement cause damage, stunting a social scientists growth. The only way disagreements become immature is when the social scientist believe their way is the only way, dismissing other ideas and solutions. Having more than one philosophy about knowledge and truth, with the possibilities of more philosophies being discovered, is exciting. I hold the personal belief that truth and knowledge is a never ending process. If humans, social scientists or not, had the means to know all truth and knowledge, life would be boring. There would be no need to search, study, learn, or research any topic. Seeking out knowledge and truth is what makes life fulfilling. The disagreements about basics in social science means that true knowledge and truth has not yet been found. These disagreements allow all social scientists to explore new and old ideas in order to find true knowledge. Along the way on this search, many methods are tested, like Marxism, democracy, and other social elements. Yet even these concepts grow and change with time, and sometimes look better on paper than in reality. Marxism is an example of this. If Marxs ideas had be implemented as he envisioned, an Utopia could have been created. If democracy had been implemented the way envisioned, all would be free, with no discrimination or oppression in democratic countries. The problem is writing a social philosophy and carrying out the concept are not the same thing. Social philosophy and science are not perfect, like the humans that put forth the ideas. This is what causes good ideas to fail, eluding perfect knowledge and truth. It is not realistic to expect to find perfect truth and knowledge from imperfect humans. Knowledge and truth morph through out history and cultures. There is no such thing as a perfect all knowing knowledge and truth for humans. Just because knowledge and truth are elusive, does not mean the search for them should stop. Humans should never stop striving for knowledge and truth. If humans did stop learning, we would still be in the Dark Ages. Even if there is no perfect knowledge and truth, knowledge and truth within the human grasp is still waiting to be learned. Philosophies in social sciences should be examined, even with disagreements. Humans will never be omnipresent, thus a perfect understanding true knowledge and truth will never be obtained. However, humans should continue the search any knowledge and truth they can find themselves or through others. Disagreements allow individuals to think about issues in a different way, giving them new ideas to keep searching. The search for knowledge and truth are what makes life worth living. References Benton, T. and Craib, I. (2001) Philosophy of Social Science: The Philosophical Foundations of Social Thought, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 75-85 and 93-99. Johnson, T., Dandeker, C. and Ashworth, C. (1984) The Structure of Social Theory: Dilemmas and Strategies. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 13-18. Smith, M. J. (1998) ‘Reinventing reality’, pp. 297-304 in Social Science in Question. London: Sage. Read More