The term social science is a misnomer which masks the necessarily different epistemic
methods and ontological realities consistent with natural and social realms respectively”.
Critically appraise this claim
In this essay I intend to dispute the notion that the term social science is a misnomer.
Firstly, I will define social science, and then focus on the differences between rationalism
and empiricism without whose existence there would be no epistemology. Empiricism will
receive more attention due to the fact that that it has become the dominant epistemic
approach, systematically and rigorously expressed through its offspring, ie ,materialism,
sensism, positivism and naturalism. Second, I intend to allow ontological realities to
manifest themselves through Kants articulation as both an empiricist and a rationalist. This
will dispel uninteresting dichotomies and allow one to stand back”, as it were, from ones
own analysis of the topic.
EPISTEMIC APPROACHES WITHIN THE NATURAL AND SOCIAL
SCIENCES:Rationalism and Empiricism.
According to Marshall social science is “a general label applied to the study of society and
human relationships”€¦The designation of an area of study as a social science usually
carries the implication that it is comparable in many ways to a natural science” (1994 :
493). The implication here is that natural and social reality can be studied in the same way
because both realities consist of relationships between facts, eg, cause and effect.
Note should be taken of the fact that rationalists and empiricists, despite their different
approaches in their quest for knowledge, have both contributed immensely to the “birth” of
different academic disciplines to which even modern day intellectuals subscribe. More
interesting is that each of the two epistemic approaches claims their method of enquiry
gives birth to valid information or certainty. According to Hamlyn rationalism ,whose
founder is Descartes is an epistemological doctrine that “puts weight on reason or
understanding, as distinct from the senses or sense perception”(1987:134).On the other
hand empiricists believe the only source of knowledge is experience. John Locke held the
view that the scope of our knowledge is limited to, and by, our
experience”(Stumpf,1983:254).
RATIONALISM
(i)Descartes:
This philosophical movement was initiated by Descartes and “carried on with varying
degrees of thoroughness by Spinoza and Leibniz”€¦(Hamlyn, 1987:134). A rationalist relies
on logic and principles of reasonableness in order to arrive at a conclusion. One would
clarify this by giving an example popularized by Rene Descartes that “it is only in relation
to thinking that I am certain that I exist”(Hamlyn,1987:138).Descartes continues to
maintain that existence must be a property of a being who is conceived of as possessing all
attributes in perfection (Hamlyn,1987:141).Kant opposed this view citing experience was
not a property of a thing in the way that Descartes supposes. Leibniz went further by
maintaining that “existence depends on whether that conception is coherent or involves a
contradiction”(Hamlyn,1987:140).One can partly agree with Descartes view that existence
is a property of a being, but to say that its creator is perfect is a product of human
imagination. Perfection, by the way, remains an imaginary construct when taking into
account the context in which Descartes states his case. For example, in order for one to be
declared perfect, one has to adhere to the standard guidelines which should be followed in
order to create a particular thing or use a previous model as a yardstick or even improve on
it. It is ones belief that rationalism has not been a dominant epistemic approach. Kant and
Locke, for example, have imbibed both epistemic approaches. To take it further most
modern day individuals employ both approaches in their daily activities.
(ii)Spinoza
There was also another rationalist called Spinoza in whose views rationalism received its
most systematic and rigorous expression. His main work was called ethics. According to
Stumpf “ethics is concerned with actions that can be labeled right or wrong, good or bad,
desirable or undesirable, worthy or unworthy. Also, ethics, is concerned with ones personal
responsibility, duty, or obligation for his behaviour”(1983:1)His concern with ethics should
be understood in its proper context in that both the means and goals of social science
investigation are intrinsically bound up with ethical considerations, especially when
conducting research involving human subjects, eg., protection of privacy through informed
consent.
According to Hamlyn Spinoza provides “”€¦a striking contrast with Descartes ,who had
little concern with things ethical”(1987:149).Spinoza felt that there are three kinds of
knowledge, ie, knowledge of vague experience- when we generalize from casual and
confused experience. The second kind is identified with reason, and the third one is
intuition(Hamlyn,1987:152).The second and third kinds of knowledge reflect a rationalist
view in that they are necessarily true, and reason regards things as necessary
(iii)Leibniz
According to Stumpf “Leibniz was dissatisfied with the way Descartes and Spinoza had
described the nature of substance because he felt they had distorted our understanding of
human nature”(1983:246).Spinoza defines substance as that which is in itself: I mean that
the conception of which does not depend on the conception of another thing from which it
must be formed”(Stumpf,1983:241).Leibniz on the other hand takes it that substance as a
basic form of existence must be absolutely simple ,for if it were complex it would be
secondary to whatever it is composed of (Hamlyn,1987:159).This means that Leibniz and
Spinoza somehow agree that substance should not depend on anything other that itself to
exist. But one would argue that their view has defied logic in that every entity or substance
is an “offspring” or a product of a particular thing”.
It is interesting that Leibniz, despite being a rationalist, sought empirical evidence to
