Who is associated with positivism

Auguste Comte was the first to lay out the positivist position for sociology arguing that 1 social phenomena—or social facts, as Durkheim would call them—external and observable to individuals were amenable to empirical, scientific analysis and, thus, the goal for a positivist social science would be 2 to discern the abstract, social laws that undergirded these observable facts; 3 to not focus on causes, especially ultimate causes, but rather the natural relations between phenomena; and 4 to produce a body of cumulative knowledge that could guide social engineers, analogous to physics or chemistry guiding mechanical or electrical engineers.

Since Comte, positivism has evolved. Contemporary positivists, as well as their critics, assign different meanings and emphases to a relatively wide range of practices and philosophical positions, which has produced some confusion as to what positivism is or is not. Additionally, a later section, Commentary and Critique , will provide seminal works that underscore the diversity in critiques of positivist sociology.

Perhaps the most important charge leveled against positivism is that it dominates the discipline and especially the most prestigious journals, in spite of the fact that positivism has many different contemporary methodological and epistemological meanings.

Nevertheless, a few core elements can be isolated that underscore all positivisms. First, sociology is and should be a science, in that only those social facts external and observable by scientific methods and instruments are to be studied.

Second, and closely related, sociological inquiry should be objective, value-neutral inquiry distinguishable from religious, moral, political, or philosophical inquiry. Third, the methods and instruments should be reliable, verifiable, and precise; though there is not a distinct set of methods to which positivists adhere, many positivists often called methodological positivists subscribe to quantitative analyses.

Fourth, theories should be abstract, generalizable statements with clearly defined concepts linked by their relationship. Fifth, the ultimate goal is cumulative, objective knowledge of the social world, its properties, and its dynamics.

No clear bifurcation between classical or contemporary positivism can be delineated. Both social scientists accepted the belief that there was an empirical world and that scientific methods should be employed to observe it; both wrote a text specifically on methods, with Spencer focused on the use of historical-comparative methods to generate first principles. Durkheim did not prescribe a particular method, but cogently argued that social facts were distinct phenomena apart from psychological facts and established the logic behind scientific inquiry.

During the classical phase of sociology, in Europe and the United States, most social scientists took for granted sociology as a science. For instance, Sorokin contains a general theory of stratification and mobility that tacitly assumes these phenomena have some unchanging identifiable qualities. Or, consider Sumner and Keller , a herculean effort to compile data on every known society so that all sociologists would draw from the same place and cumulative knowledge could be established.

In essence, Logical Positivists emphasized methodology over theory, logic over abstraction, and verification. In many ways, Logical Positivism shaped what is called methodological positivism today in that they conflated empirical generalizations with theoretical statements. On the other hand, Popper offers one of the more cogent and respected philosophy of science critiques of positivism.

Ayers, A. Logical Positivism. New York: Dover. Carnap, Rudolf. The unity of science. London: Kegan Paul. A typical example of a Logical Positivist argument.

In particular, Carnap focuses on what is often called the unity of science or the epistemological, ontological, and methodological position that all external, observable phenomena are amenable to scientific measurement. Comte, Auguste. It promises to provide the assurances and certainties that the natural sciences apparently enjoy to situations which are often incredibly complex.

As this essay has shown, however, such confidence is often misplaced both in relation to the social and natural sciences. Rather than take issue with what positivism sets out to do, the problem is the privileged position in scientific findings are held. Given the uncertainties that competing epistemologies have presented with regards to the philosophy of science it would seem somewhat naive to believe that any approach can offer the truly definitive knowledge that positivism claims to.

Though modern positivists may now shy away from the overarching claims originally made by the likes of Comte and the Vienna Circle, there still exist a number of issues which cannot be ignored when trying to offer claims to objective knowledge of the phenomena with which the social sciences concern themselves. Crotty, M. Johnson, C. Johnson, J. Marsh, D. Miller, R. Weber, M. Runciman, W. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zammito, J. Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.

E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view.

Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks! Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below. Thomas Houghton. This does not do justice to the spread of intellectual influences within positivism or the possibility for reflexivity on the part of positivists or 'neo-positivists'.

Positivism provides a lens through which to view events, a limited one and provides story as to how external factors influence human behaviour.

Second, many anti-positivists borrow much more from the legacy of positivism than they seem to realise. Their research might, albeit, implicitly discuss cause and effect; they arrive at reified meanings for concepts; they see themselves as contributing to bodies of knowledge; they believe they are offering trustworthy accounts of social activity.

There are, however, two major reasons why we should be more cautious than this: The first is that positivism is often presented as a caricature: positivists are people with a naive belief that social science is objective and are fixated on quantitative methods.

References Blaikie, N. The link below has extra references that I had prepared for education students.