III. The Facts of the Social Sciences
1
There is currently no widely accepted term for the group of disciplines that study social life, although "moral sciences" used to be common. The term "social sciences" is used, but not all disciplines under this label address the specific issues discussed. Some fields, like studying diseases, are more aligned with natural sciences. In contrast, areas like language or law involve different challenges. The author argues that understanding social phenomena requires different methods than those used in natural sciences. Despite initially believing in natural science methods, the author found that applying these to social issues often leads to failure and confusion.
2
The discussion is about what we mean when we talk about "a certain kind of facts" in the social sciences. It raises important questions about whether these facts are naturally given to us or if we create our understanding based on how we see and classify them. While all of our knowledge starts with physical facts that we perceive through our senses, this doesn’t mean that our understanding is only about physical things. Instead, it relies on how we connect objects and actions to human behavior.
The social sciences study how people act towards their environment, which includes other people and objects. When analyzing these objects, it’s not their physical features that matter, but the meanings and values that society gives them. Items like tools, food, medicine, and language are important in human activities, but their significance comes from the beliefs that people hold, rather than any objective qualities they have. These concepts can be understood through “teleological concepts,” which focus on the purposes they serve and the meanings that people attach to them.
The role of beliefs is especially clear when looking at different cultures. For example, a charm believed to have protective powers is significant because of the beliefs surrounding it, not because of any inherent qualities it has. Similarly, whether something is seen as medicine depends on whether people believe it works. Thus, in social sciences, the meaning of objects is based on how individuals perceive and understand them.
Human actions are also defined by the intentions and beliefs of the people involved. Words and acts of production are grouped together not because of their physical features but because of the shared understanding of their meanings. This means that different instances of the same action are classified as such when the underlying beliefs and intentions are similar, rather than because they look the same.
When interpreting human behavior, we often mix what we observe with what we think based on our own experiences. For instance, seeing someone navigate traffic leads us to interpret their actions based on what we know. However, this approach can cause misunderstandings, especially in situations that are new or unfamiliar.
There is an important debate in the social sciences about whether personal interpretations can be used in scientific analysis, as these might conflict with a more objective approach that focuses solely on observable facts. Still, to understand social actions, we often need to recognize patterns and intentions that may not always be visible.
As we look at cultures that are very different from our own, the concrete details of their behaviors become less important, while broader ideas like purpose and function become more helpful for understanding what people do. This shows that understanding human actions isn’t just about physical characteristics but involves interpreting the shared meanings and purposes that people create.
In summary, understanding objects and actions in the social sciences is based on the beliefs and intentions of individuals. Our perception of the world comes from interpreting these meanings, not just focusing on physical attributes. The connection between beliefs, classification, and interpretation is key to analyzing behavior in various social contexts. How we categorize objects and actions is determined by our insights into human purpose and social meanings, which helps us understand behavior in different societies and cultures.
3
The focus is on how social sciences classify actions and their purposes. It explains that classifying is mainly a way to organize facts instead of directly explaining individual behaviors. Social sciences do not aim to explain individual actions like psychology does; instead, they categorize different types of behavior to create a clearer understanding for further analysis. This classification process can be seen as a logical method. Although some people might criticize this approach, it's an important part of understanding human behavior.
There is a claim that we can use our knowledge of our own minds to create a complete classification of understandable behavior. While this might seem bold, it just means we can interpret actions similar to our own experiences. The classification allows us to break down behaviors, like economic actions that are influenced by limited resources. By organizing these actions into categories, we can see the relationships and patterns in social behavior more clearly.
These classifications help us build hypothetical models that represent social relationships. However, there is a question about whether this model-building is the best way to study social facts, as some believe it is more effective to observe and measure these facts directly. Many people think that focusing on social groups allows for better understanding because it seems more objective, like natural sciences. This belief suggests that social phenomena are better understood as whole systems rather than just looking at individual parts.
The argument presented is that social facts are not as objective as they seem; rather, they are like models we create in social sciences. Just as we interpret individual actions, social facts result from our mental constructions instead of being straightforward truths like those in physical sciences. Historical facts also illustrate this concept; they are often incorrectly seen as purely objective. Instead, they are defined by how we view and connect different events.
Historical facts, such as events or systems, cannot only be defined by time and place. They need a mental framework to understand how various elements fit together into what we call a single fact. The meaning of a battle or a social system depends on how we interpret and connect these aspects into a bigger picture. This supports the idea that historical and social facts are shaped by our interpretations rather than just being direct observations.
Theories in social sciences help create these bigger pictures by offering ways to connect different individual facts. They do not claim to find laws of behavior like natural sciences do but instead provide reasoning techniques that help relate various elements. Theories cannot be directly verified against facts; they only help identify assumptions and ensure consistency. Although they assist in understanding, they cannot be proven or disproven in the same way as facts.
Additionally, the idea of “historical relativism” points out that different interpretations of history come from selectively choosing events that are important for answering specific questions. This view questions the notion that unique historical events can lead to general rules because understanding history relies on context and perspective.
Overall, social phenomena and historical facts are best viewed as constructions based on how we understand and interpret them, rather than as direct observations like in the natural sciences. For social scientists, understanding society means looking from the inside, where our ideas shape how social life is understood. The complex relationships and classifications we create come from our thinking, helping us communicate and understand complicated social structures more effectively.
1
There is currently no widely accepted term for the group of disciplines that study social life, although "moral sciences" used to be common. The term "social sciences" is used, but not all disciplines under this label address the specific issues discussed. Some fields, like studying diseases, are more aligned with natural sciences. In contrast, areas like language or law involve different challenges. The author argues that understanding social phenomena requires different methods than those used in natural sciences. Despite initially believing in natural science methods, the author found that applying these to social issues often leads to failure and confusion.
2
The discussion is about what we mean when we talk about "a certain kind of facts" in the social sciences. It raises important questions about whether these facts are naturally given to us or if we create our understanding based on how we see and classify them. While all of our knowledge starts with physical facts that we perceive through our senses, this doesn’t mean that our understanding is only about physical things. Instead, it relies on how we connect objects and actions to human behavior.
The social sciences study how people act towards their environment, which includes other people and objects. When analyzing these objects, it’s not their physical features that matter, but the meanings and values that society gives them. Items like tools, food, medicine, and language are important in human activities, but their significance comes from the beliefs that people hold, rather than any objective qualities they have. These concepts can be understood through “teleological concepts,” which focus on the purposes they serve and the meanings that people attach to them.
The role of beliefs is especially clear when looking at different cultures. For example, a charm believed to have protective powers is significant because of the beliefs surrounding it, not because of any inherent qualities it has. Similarly, whether something is seen as medicine depends on whether people believe it works. Thus, in social sciences, the meaning of objects is based on how individuals perceive and understand them.
Human actions are also defined by the intentions and beliefs of the people involved. Words and acts of production are grouped together not because of their physical features but because of the shared understanding of their meanings. This means that different instances of the same action are classified as such when the underlying beliefs and intentions are similar, rather than because they look the same.
When interpreting human behavior, we often mix what we observe with what we think based on our own experiences. For instance, seeing someone navigate traffic leads us to interpret their actions based on what we know. However, this approach can cause misunderstandings, especially in situations that are new or unfamiliar.
There is an important debate in the social sciences about whether personal interpretations can be used in scientific analysis, as these might conflict with a more objective approach that focuses solely on observable facts. Still, to understand social actions, we often need to recognize patterns and intentions that may not always be visible.
As we look at cultures that are very different from our own, the concrete details of their behaviors become less important, while broader ideas like purpose and function become more helpful for understanding what people do. This shows that understanding human actions isn’t just about physical characteristics but involves interpreting the shared meanings and purposes that people create.
In summary, understanding objects and actions in the social sciences is based on the beliefs and intentions of individuals. Our perception of the world comes from interpreting these meanings, not just focusing on physical attributes. The connection between beliefs, classification, and interpretation is key to analyzing behavior in various social contexts. How we categorize objects and actions is determined by our insights into human purpose and social meanings, which helps us understand behavior in different societies and cultures.
3
The focus is on how social sciences classify actions and their purposes. It explains that classifying is mainly a way to organize facts instead of directly explaining individual behaviors. Social sciences do not aim to explain individual actions like psychology does; instead, they categorize different types of behavior to create a clearer understanding for further analysis. This classification process can be seen as a logical method. Although some people might criticize this approach, it's an important part of understanding human behavior.
There is a claim that we can use our knowledge of our own minds to create a complete classification of understandable behavior. While this might seem bold, it just means we can interpret actions similar to our own experiences. The classification allows us to break down behaviors, like economic actions that are influenced by limited resources. By organizing these actions into categories, we can see the relationships and patterns in social behavior more clearly.
These classifications help us build hypothetical models that represent social relationships. However, there is a question about whether this model-building is the best way to study social facts, as some believe it is more effective to observe and measure these facts directly. Many people think that focusing on social groups allows for better understanding because it seems more objective, like natural sciences. This belief suggests that social phenomena are better understood as whole systems rather than just looking at individual parts.
The argument presented is that social facts are not as objective as they seem; rather, they are like models we create in social sciences. Just as we interpret individual actions, social facts result from our mental constructions instead of being straightforward truths like those in physical sciences. Historical facts also illustrate this concept; they are often incorrectly seen as purely objective. Instead, they are defined by how we view and connect different events.
Historical facts, such as events or systems, cannot only be defined by time and place. They need a mental framework to understand how various elements fit together into what we call a single fact. The meaning of a battle or a social system depends on how we interpret and connect these aspects into a bigger picture. This supports the idea that historical and social facts are shaped by our interpretations rather than just being direct observations.
Theories in social sciences help create these bigger pictures by offering ways to connect different individual facts. They do not claim to find laws of behavior like natural sciences do but instead provide reasoning techniques that help relate various elements. Theories cannot be directly verified against facts; they only help identify assumptions and ensure consistency. Although they assist in understanding, they cannot be proven or disproven in the same way as facts.
Additionally, the idea of “historical relativism” points out that different interpretations of history come from selectively choosing events that are important for answering specific questions. This view questions the notion that unique historical events can lead to general rules because understanding history relies on context and perspective.
Overall, social phenomena and historical facts are best viewed as constructions based on how we understand and interpret them, rather than as direct observations like in the natural sciences. For social scientists, understanding society means looking from the inside, where our ideas shape how social life is understood. The complex relationships and classifications we create come from our thinking, helping us communicate and understand complicated social structures more effectively.