The headlining question is a leading one in that the formulation surely implies that social sciences are not, why else ask such a thing? It is not the first time it has been asked and it will not be the last, for it stems from a long-running debate in the history of philosophy of science. Why then would such a leading question be formed? It is rooted in an epistemological deadlock for social science between naturalists’ theory of knowledge being based on natural scientific method, versus the anti-naturalists or interpretavists’ theory of knowledge based on intelligibility and it means being interpretation (Rosenberg, 2008).
Despite the strong argument for natural scientific method being the benchmark for science, thus forcing the social sciences to adapt it or to rid the name of science, coming posts will argue that the social sciences are in fact sciences by pointing out the limits of naturalistic epistemology and method applied to the social sciences, as well as arguing the need for widening the concept of science in including context and the thought-process behind.