August Comte (1798-1857) was the founder of the field of sociology. "Coming at the top of a wave of scientific discoveries, and excited also by the political and social changes in the European world around him, he [Comte] conceived the idea, which was shared in varying degrees by other thinkers of his time, that science might be unified and used in such a way as to harmonize the discords of human life and give an authoritative direction of human action in future." (Marvin, p. 11)

Although inspired by developments in natural science, Comte saw the opportunity for "the creation of a new and higher science to preside over the hierarchy of knowledge, and for the recognition of a supreme organism[humanity] to embody and control it" (Marvin, 16). Though the founder of sociology, Comte continues the tradition of the distinction between human science versus natural science. "Oaks had always come from acorns and animals bred according to their kind. Could the whole field of biology be brought under the same rule of natural law, and if so, how can we exclude the human kind, which on its animal side plainly follows a similar ordering?" (Marvin, 16).

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) was "one of the most influential figures in the development of sociology in the twentieth century." (Giddens, p. 11). Durkheim accepted some theory of Comte, for example, Comte's "subtle, if somewhat ambiguous, distinction between sympathy and altruism." (Wallwork, p. 45) In The Rules for Sociological Method (1895), Durkheim "proposed that social phenomena should be treated like things: we should regard ourselves as those we were objects in nature." (Giddens, p. 11). However, while Durkheim appears to accentuate "the similarities between sociology and natural science", (Giddens, p. 11), Durkheim rejects the impact of nature and instinct. (Nisbit, p. 247).

Another figure, Wilhelm Dilthey,

While Max Weber, the third in the series of key influential figures in sociology, generally sympathized with this division of the sciences, he is not as extreme as Dilthey. "Weber uses his tools of ideal types to put at least some generality back into the process. He does not want to merely interpret history, but to say something about what caused it." (Collins, p. 35)

In science, the approach of acquiring facts is in some ways more important than resulting theory. Weber chooses a humanistic means of discovering social facts. "More positively, Weber asserts that the appropriate method for the human science is verstehen, understanding. Because history is created by human beings, in order to explain it we must always project ourselves into the position of the people who created it, to see through their eyes. Geist , after all, means ‘spirit,’ and to penetrate the nature of the Geisteswissenschaften we must get ourselves into the spirit of it." (Collins, pp. 35-36)

Anthony Giddens, a leading contemporary author in sociology, unambiguously rejects the similarities between sociology and social science. "To speak of sociology, and of other subjects like anthropology and economics, as 'social sciences', is to stress that they involve the systematic study of empirical subject-matter." (Giddens, p. 11).

Giddens points out that the social sciences differ from the natural sciences in two respects. First, Giddens points out that "we create society at the same time were are created by it" so that we cannot treat human activities as though they were determined by causes in the same way as natural events are." (Giddens, p. 11). Second, "social analysis can help influence our future," while atoms cannot get to know what scientists say about them, or change their behavior in the light of that knowledge." (Giddens, p. 11).

Ludwig Wittgenstein was "arguably the greatest philosopher of this [the 20th] century." (Pears and Kenny, p. 257) Wittgenstein attempted to destroy "the intellectualism on which his adversaries' position was based" those who worked in the Cartesian tradition. "When the mind turns its back on the physical world, it obviously loses more than half the material on which its skills were exercised. What is not so obvious is that it also loses all the skills that were originally based on a network of connections involving the body, its place in the physical world, and its needs." (Pears and Kenny, p. 268).

Yet Wittgenstein continues the separation of natural and social philosophy. "Wittgenstein always drew a firm line between philosophy and science and held that while science investigates the world, philosophy is a purely conceptual investigation." (Pears and Kenny, p. 269).

1. A. Giddens, Sociology: A Brief but Critical Introduction (2^nd Ed.), 1987.

2. D. Pears and A. Kenny, "Mill to Wittgenstein", Oxford History of Western Philosophy, A. Kenny, ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994.