A SOCIAL SCIENCE FOUNDED ON A UNIFIED 



NATURAL SCIENCE 



c*o 



The Social Sciences are Founded on Natural Science 



IT is common enough to compare the social sciences un- 

 favorably with natural science. Sometimes it is the social 

 conservative who disparages the " claims of the social sci- 

 ences," because he believes that social scientists tend to be too 

 liberal. Sometimes it is the natural scientist who is appalled 

 that the vague and tenuous theories, the sketchy statistics, 

 the public opinion polls of social sciences should be compared 

 with his beautiful equations so exactly verified in the neat 

 precincts of his laboratory. Sometimes it is the man-in-the- 

 street who contrasts the marvelous inventions given us by 

 natural science with the feeble attempts of social scientists to 

 predict or ameliorate our social crises. 



What these critics do not realize is that historically the social 

 sciences arose precisely because man's knowledge of society 

 contrasted so painfully with his increasing exact knowledge of 

 nature.^ 



The social sciences, however, depend on natural science for 

 much more than an inspiration or an example of method. The 

 study of human behavior in society presupposes a sound under- 

 standing of the nature of man. This is the work of psychology. 

 Psychology in turn makes use of all the achievements of 

 physics, chemistry and biology both to understand man's own 

 structure and the environment in which he lives. 



To be sure, this dependence of the social sciences on natural 



^ See Simon Deploige, The Conflict between Ethics and Sociology, trans, by 

 C. C. Miltner C. S. C. (St. Louis: Herder, 1938). Alvin Boskoff, "From Social 

 Thought to Sociological Theory," in Howard Becker and Alvin BoskofT, eds., 

 Modem Sociological Theory in Continuity and Change (New York: Dryden Press, 

 1957) , pp. 3-34 and J. Leclercq, Introduction a la Sociologie (Louvain: Nau- 

 welaer^s ed. nouv., 1959) , Chap. III-IV, pp. 39-74. 



469 



