Positivism supports objectivity

The argument

Positivism is a branch of philosophical research that only employs science and maths to prove its theories. It can, therefore, be argued that positivism is the best approach to academic research because it focuses on hard facts and empirical evidence, like data and statistics rather than subjective human observation, to reveal the true nature of society. It is positivism’s staunch adherence to scientific methods of research which renders it superior, as it does not rely on the subjectivity of human observation for proof of existence. Positivists work under the assumption that if something exists then it must be able to be proved through data and statistics. If it cannot, then that thing must not exist. The positivist reliance on hard sciences means that they are able to draw near-absolute conclusions which leaves little room for debate. This renders it a superior research methodology because it leaves little room for contradiction. Numbers have no bias and they don’t lie. The facts and figures they employ result in definite conclusions of true, false, or meaningless.. Its adherence to practical evidence introduces objectivity to the study because it actively excludes evidence with it tainted by human emotion and bias – that is, subjectivity. Positivism gives no weight to human subjective observations which are not backed by data and statistics, arguing that proof can only come from objective observations. This quantitative methodology removes human judgment and bias from the research, ensuring that results represent what is really there rather than what the researcher thinks is there.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Opponents of positivism would point out that not everything in the world, especially in the social world, can be systematically categorised. There are aspects of society that cannot be understood and explained with numbers and figures. Sometimes there is a need for qualitative evidence. This is especially relevant in social science because humans are neither controllable nor predictable. It is almost impossible to create controlled human environments and to do so would get in the way of finding the truth. This is because controlling the environment alters human behaviour, especially when they are being observed. This is known as the Hawthorne effect. Moreover, controlling environments for experiments on society is highly unethical.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Humans are inherently unpredictable and uncontrollable.