Objectivity, Social Sciences, and the Charge of Inferiority

PDF
Published: Jun 30, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/cjp.25582
Keywords:
fact humanism naturalism natural science objectivity scientific method social science value judgement
Olanshile Muideen Adeyanju
Obafemi Awolowo University, Nigeria.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5869-8355
Abstract

This paper challenges the charge of inferiority, on the basis of objectivity, against the social sciences. The idea of objectivity is that facts about the state of the world and entities in it are observed or studied without a taint of personal bias, value judgement or particular perspective. The social sciences are accused of falling short of the requirements of objectivity hence they are considered inferior to the natural sciences which are claimed to merit the requirements. This paper argues that the idea of objectivity has been misleadingly conceived as a method exclusive only to the natural sciences. The paper maintains that if the concept of objectivity is conceptually analysed and conceived in a strict sense, the ideals and requirements of objectivity would be outside the ken of both the natural sciences and the social sciences. However, if the concept of objectivity is conceived in a moderate sense, the social sciences would merit being called objective as much as the natural sciences. Thus, a conceptual analysis will show that both the natural sciences and social sciences are at par on the threshold of objectivity. Thus, the paper submits that the social sciences are not inferior to the natural sciences on the basis of objectivity.

Article Details
  • Section
  • Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (preferably in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Author Biography
Olanshile Muideen Adeyanju, Obafemi Awolowo University, Nigeria.

I am a Lecturer II at the Department of Philosophy, Obafemi Awolowo University, Nigeria.

References
Daston, Lorraine. “Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective.” Social Studies of Science 22, no. 4 (1992): 597-618. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/030631292022004002.
Doppelt, Gerald. “The Value Ladenness of Scientific Knowledge.” In Value-Free Science? Ideals or Illusions, edited by Harold Kincaid, John Dupré, and Alison Wylie, 188-217. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195308969.003.0013.
Douglas, Heather. “Rejecting the Ideal of Value-Free Science.” In Value-Free Science? Ideals or Illusions, edited by Harold Kincaid, John Dupré, and Alison Wylie, 120-139. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195308969.003.0009.
Dupré, John. “Fact and Value.” In Value-Free Science? Ideals or Illusions, edited by Harold Kincaid, John Dupré, and Alison Wylie, 27-41. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195308969.003.0003.
Fay, Brian, and Donald J. Moon. “What Would an Adequate Philosophy of Social Science Look Like?” Philosophy of Social Science 7, no. 3 (1977): 209-227. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/004839317700700301.
Fine, Arthur. “Scientific Realism and Antirealism.” In The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward Craig, 950-953. New York: Routledge, 2005. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780415249126-q094-1.
Hitchcock, Christopher. “Introduction: What is the Philosophy of Science.” In Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science, edited by Christopher Hitchcock, 1-19. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004.
Kosso, Peter. A Summary of Scientific Method. London: Springer, 2011. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1614-8.
Lepley, Ray. “The Verifiability of Facts and Values.” Philosophy of Science 5, no. 3 (1938): 310-320. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/286512.
Longino, Helen E. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691209753.
Machlup, Fritz. “Are the Social Sciences Really Inferior?” In Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, edited by Michael Martin, and Lee C. McIntyre, 5-19. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1994.
Montuschi, Eleonora. The Objects of Social Science. London: Continuum, 2003.
Nagel, Ernest. The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2183206.
Reiss, Julian, and Jan Sprenger. “Scientific Objectivity.” In The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/scientific-objectivity.
Weber, Max. The Methodology of the Social Sciences. Translated and edited by Edward Shils, and Henry Finch. New York: Free Press, 1968.