100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 6 pages.
Weber: considered all sciences as occupying a position in the continuum. One extreme end, you will have sciences that are completely monothetical. Monothetical sciences are concerned with covering laws, general laws which cover all phenomena. They tend to be reductionists. In much of physical sciences you want to look at the world as being very heterogeneous. There are all kinds of animals, you don't want to just describe these things. You'd want reduce all of the stuff to a couple of general laws. Natural sciences have monothetical laws. For instance, Physics would be a monothetical science. It reduces everything into general laws. What about Chemistry? Yes, very monothetical. It is not as parsimonious. You have many elements. There are still laws, but they're not as generalizable as Physics. Physics is much more austere. Chemistry is a little more alchemy. Math -- not exactly an empirical science. Early biology was not very monothetical. They were interested in coming up with taxonomy (classification thru collection of different species in the world). They were recording the vast and complexity of the world. It wasn't very monothetical. Darwin -- all species come from the same thing, they all obey the same laws. Biology became much more monothetical when Darwin came around. On the extreme of the continuum, you'll find sciences that are ideographic. They're not interested in laws. They're interested in the particularity of your case. You're not trying to extend your case to general law. You're trying to understand the specificity of individuals. From this perspective, what researchers are doing does not resemble physical sciences at all. Professional psychologists will not be interested in general laws. More interested in individual cases. Empirical sciences: political science -- laws aren't as generalized as natural sciences. The most ideographic science is history. Historians are very weary of thinking in very universal laws. You're trying to understand the specificity of your study. Sociology -- more or less monothetical way to do sociology. Durkheim -- tried to come up general laws. The division of labor: people who do similar things are going to think the same way. Marxian social theories need pretension. All societies have to go through the same sequence of mode of production. He's trying to come up with general law. Marx and Durkheim are more monothetical. The kind of sociology that Weber favors is very much more ideographic than Marx and Durkheim. He didn't want sociology to be completely like history. He was very interested in understanding