Site Loader

There has been an ongoing debate on how human actions should be studied. Many social scientists believe that prediction and interpretation could be reconciled and that we can develop a causal theory of human actions (Rosenberg, 2008). However, this effort to reconcile prediction and interpretation between the natural sciences and interpretative social sciences has resulted to some critics and controversies that lead to the argument that the aim of social sciences should not be prediction but rather interpretation. Thus, interpretative social sciences should focus on meaning rather than on uncovering the causal law of human actions which is so impossible to happen because of the concept of free will raised by some critics of the naturalist perspective.
As a social science major, we take on the stand that prediction and interpretation can never be reconciled and that the best way to study human actions is to explained it which means to interpret it. Just like for example in the study of deep meanings of Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx, both seem to claim their theories to be causal theories but at the latter turn out not a causal one because of its lack of predictive power and inability to access human consciousness. However, even though the theories of Freud and Marx did not qualify as a causal theory it does not mean that these theories are to be considered useless. Maybe we are just barking at the wrong tree and we need to change how we perceive these theories just like what other social scientist did. We need to admit that although the theories of Freud and Marx seem not to have the predictive power of human actions but still their theories in some way give light to the deeper meanings of human affairs and made us possible to understand it. Anyone with a serious interest in the theories must look elsewhere for a fuller view (Rosenberg, 2008, p. 118)

Post Author: admin