The positivist paradigm believes that society should be studied scientifically. Sociology should approach research in the same way as the natural sciences: objective and logical. It should follow the hypothetico-deductive method, the step-by-step process of forming a hypothesis and testing it against evidence to reach a conclusion.
A positivist approach prefers collecting quantitative data using objective research methods, such as closed questionnaires, structured interviews, and experiments.
This will allow them to uncover and measure patterns of behavior, which will lead them to create social facts that govern society.
Social facts are things such as institutions, norms, and values. They exist external to the individual and constrain the individual. For example, the reality of crime is measured in terms of Official Statistics.
Comte named the scientific study of social patterns positivism. He said that using scientific methods to reveal the laws by which societies and individuals interact would create a “positivist” age of history.
Also, by using quantitative data, positivists believe that they are able to uncover cause and effect that determine human behavior.
The search for causality comes from the desire to be able to change things for the better. Causality means the relationships between cause and effect. How one stimuli can lead to a certain action.
Sociological positivists put this into practice. By applying scientific principles to the study of society, they argue that sociologists can propose changes that build a better one.
Positivists believe that research should be detached from subjective feelings and interpretations. It is claimed that a scientist’s beliefs and values have no impact on their findings, and sociologists should be the same.
Key Takeaways
- Definition: Positivism is an approach to sociology, and to philosophy more broadly, that relies on empirical evidence, such as that produced by experiments and statistics, to reveal how society functions.
- Scientific Approach: Sociology should approach research the same way as the natural sciences: objective and logical.
- Origins: Positivism originates from the French philosophers and sociologists Henri de Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, and Emile Durkheim, before branching into German-Austrian and American traditions in the early 20th century.
- Core Principles: positivism rests on four defining rules: phenomenalism (recording only what can be directly observed), nominalism, refusing to call value judgments knowledge, and a shared scientific method across disciplines.
- Decline: the Frankfurt School, a group of theorists who critiqued positivism’s search for universal laws, helped drive positivism’s relatively limited direct influence on sociology since the 1970s.
What Is Positivism?
Positivism is a term used to describe an approach to the study of society that relies specifically on empirical scientific evidence, such as controlled experiments and statistics.
Positivism holds that inquiry should not go beyond the boundaries of what can be observed. To a positivist, science matters most. Only questions approachable by the scientific method should concern us.
Reality exists outside and independently of the mind, so it can be studied objectively as a real thing in itself.
Positivists believe there are social facts that make up the rules of society, separate from and independent of individuals. These are institutions, norms, and values that exist external to the individual and constrain it.
Society’s General Laws
Sociological positivism holds that society functions according to general laws. This works like the physical world. By observing social life, scientists develop reliable, consistent knowledge of its inner workings.
As covered above, positivists argue that applying scientific principles to the study of society lets sociologists propose social changes for the better. This method of gathering data through careful observation is called inductive reasoning.
A theory is formed from the data. It is then verified through further study.
Positivists believe sociology should follow the same objective, experimental methods as the natural sciences. This keeps the research value-free, so patterns and causation can be reliably established.
This is what gives sociology its scientific ambition. It is not just describing behavior, but explaining it through laws that hold across cases.
Quantitative Data and Three Meanings of Positivism
Positivists prefer quantitative data, gathered as far as possible through the experimental method of the natural sciences. As covered above, this is how positivists uncover the cause and effect that determines human behavior.
Positivism, as a general term, has at least three meanings.
The first describes how Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim viewed social evolution. The second is the philosophical tradition of logical positivism. The third is a looser set of scientific research methods (Riley, 2007).
Each sense shares one core commitment: society can be studied with the same rigor and objectivity as the natural world is studied. Later sections examine the philosophical branch in more detail: the Vienna Circle’s own version of logical positivism, and the criticisms both branches attracted.
Key Principles
Positivism has moved from the realm of philosophy to sociology. Nonetheless, positivism in philosophy and sociology share, according to Kolakowski (1972) four main rules:
The rule of phenomenalism
To positivists, experience is the foundation of human knowledge, according to the rule of phenomenalism. Scientists should only observe and record what they perceive.
Kolaski (1966) notes that positivists do not necessarily ignore events and phenomena that are initially invisible. They do object, however, to accounting for “supernatural” events and beings whose nature makes them unknowable by definition.
For sociologists, phenomenalism brings three main difficulties.
Firstly, this rule appears to encourage empirical research methods. Yet many have accused sociologists who use these methods of over-abstractifying the social world (Mills, 2000; Willer et al., 1973).
The difficulties compound. Secondly, the rule demands a common way to observe experience without adding subjectivity. Beyond Durkheim’s own attempt in The Rules of the Sociological Method (1938), sociologists have put little emphasis on finding a “neutral observation language” (Bryant, 1985).
Thirdly, Kolakowski notes a real difficulty. It is often hard to say exactly what can and cannot be observed. Debates about “realism” in sociology, for instance, invoke hidden structures and mechanisms that Comte would probably have called unobservable (Keat and Urry, 1975; Bryant, 1985).
The rule of nominalism
According to the rule of nominalism, science is a way of recording experiences. Recording experience, by itself, creates no new knowledge. It cannot reach parts of reality that were previously inaccessible to empirical research (Kolakowski, 1966).
This has created controversy in sociology, specifically around whether or not social facts are the same as individual facts. Historically, divides over this question have created breaks between schools of positivism (Bryant, 1985)
The rule that refuses to call value judgments and normative statements knowledge
Sociology brings up the issue of whether or not the evaluations that a sociologist makes about the social world can be judged scientifically or rationally.
Positivists believe that research should be detached from subjective feelings and interpretations. A scientist’s own beliefs and values, on this view, have no impact on their findings. Sociologists should be held to the same standard.
To some, such as Giddens (1974), judgments of value that are not based on empirical evidence, meaning that they cannot be proven valid or invalid through experience, are not knowledge.
Belief in the essential unity of the scientific method
Finally, Kolakowski says that the scientific method can be applied to all ways of knowing. Different positivists interpret what Kolakowski means by unity differently.
Some positivists, for example, have argued that the unity of science stems from a single fundamental law. All other laws, on this view, can be derived from it — Saint-Simon, for instance, argues that this fundamental law is the law of gravity.
However, Kolaski himself holds that different types of science have certain principles and practices in common (Kolakowski, 1972; Bryant, 1985).
Hypothetico-Deductive Method
The hypothetico-deductive method is a scientific process used in positivism, in which certain logical steps are taken to arrive at the truth.
This method is usually conceptualized as consisting of a series of stages:
- Observation: the researcher observers a phenomenon considered worthy of investigation
- Conjecture: the research thinks of a plausible explanation
- Hypothesis formation: the conjecture is put in the form of a predictive statement that can be empirically tested
- Testing: a rigorous empirical test is designed and carried out under controlled conditions, with all observations and measurements objectively recorded
- Data analysis: the resulting data are carefully analyzed, using applied logical reasoning
- Conclusion: in the light of the results, the researcher decides whether the hypothesis is supported, rejected, or in need of further testing.
Theories of Positivism
Usually, scholars say that the French philosopher Auguste Comte coined the term positivism in his Cours de Philosophie Positive (1933).
This is not completely accurate. Comte did not write about the term “positivism” itself, but about the so-called “positive philosophy” and “positive method.” The philosopher Henri de Saint-Simon wrote about these ideas before him (Bryant, 1985).
Positivism has a long history in sociology, beginning in the French tradition. Saint-Simon applied positivist thinking to industry and science. Comte wrote on science and religion.
Following both, Emile Durkheim offered what scholars widely considered a positivistic interpretation of sociology and education.
Nonetheless, Durkheim was himself a critic of positivism. He connected it with an oversimplified conception of social science, and an exaggeration of the field’s achievements, both of which he considered dangerous to the new applied social sciences.
Durkheim rejected attempts to reduce the complexity of humanity to a single law or formula.
Durkheim directly rejected Comte’s universalism.
He called this wrong: “that mankind in its totality constitutes a single society which always and everywhere evolves in the same manner” (Durkheim, in Wolff & Durkheim, 1960).
In reality, Durkheim wrote:
“what exists…are particular societies (tribes, nations, cities, states of all kinds, and so on), which are born and die, progress and regress, each in its own manner, pursuing divergent goals” (Durkheim, in Wolff & Durkheim, 1960).
Despite this criticism of Comte, Durkheim still argued that sociology deals with social facts and social facts alone (Durkheim, 1938). People are controlled by factors visible through how they act. By observing how people act, sociologists can work out what those social facts are.
Durkheim’s Suicide: The Exemplary Positivist Study
Durkheim’s Suicide (1897) is positivism’s proof of concept. It tackled a phenomenon that looked like the most private act imaginable.
Aim: Durkheim had one target: suicide. He set out to show it was a social fact, not just individual psychology, governed by forces external to any one life.
Method: Durkheim gathered official suicide statistics from late-19th-century European regions, religious communities, and demographic groups. He compared rates across categories: Protestants against Catholics and Jews, married people against the unmarried and widowed.
Results: The pattern held. Protestant communities showed persistently higher rates than Catholic or Jewish ones. Rates rose during both economic depressions and unexpected booms alike, not only during hardship.
Conclusion: Suicide was a social fact. It was produced by the integration and regulation particular groups impose on their members. If even suicide obeys social laws, no area of human conduct lies beyond a scientific sociology.
Evaluation: The study’s standing has always been qualified. Its official statistics reflect variable classification decisions by coroners and religious authorities, not a neutral, ready-made count of a stable fact.
Following Durkheim, Comte, and Saint-Simon, positivism evolved into different branches in Germany, Austria and the United States.
Discussions around positivism began in Germany and Austria around economics; more generally about the differences between the natural and the historical, cultural and social sciences.
Discussions in Germany and Austria produced two further disputes (Bryant, 1985). One was the value-freedom dispute, over the place of values in academic and social science. The other was over whether sociology belonged in university departments at all.
The split ran deep. German-Austrian positivism took shape after World War I, in the hands of two rival camps: the Vienna Circle and the Frankfurt School.
The Vienna Circle itself brought together philosophers and scientists from the natural and social sciences, logic, and mathematics. They met from 1924 to 1936 at the University of Vienna.
Vienna Circle
The Vienna Circle conceptualized the world as empiricist and positivist: there is only knowledge from experience.
Logical analysis, they held, can be used to gather knowledge about the world. This commitment set the Vienna Circle apart from earlier forms of positivism.
On this view, statements are of two kinds. Some are reducible to simpler statements about what is empirically given. Others cannot be reduced to statements about empirical experience at all.
Metaphysical statements were meaningless to the Vienna Circle. They either arose from logical mistakes or were reinterpretable as empirical statements belonging to science (Bryant, 1985).
The Vienna Circle also pursued a unified science. It sought a single scientific system in which every legitimate, logical statement could be reduced to simpler concepts tied directly to experience.
This goal inspired a search for a so-called “symbolic language” that would eliminate the ambiguity of natural languages (Bryant, 1985).
Frankfurt School
The Frankfurt School, in contrast, critiqued positivism post-World War II. Horkheimer, a main figure in the Frankfurt School, believed that the methods of inquiry used in the social sciences could not imitate the scientific method used in the natural sciences.
Horkheimer argued this was because the ongoing search for universal laws was itself a logical and mathematical prejudice. This oversimplified matters. It separated theory from how people interact in the world.
Horkheimer posited that “we should reconsider not merely the scientist, but the knowing individual, in general” (Horkheimer, 1972).
The main arguments of Horkheimer and other members of the school involved:
- The rejection of scientists: the Frankfurt school rejected the idea that that which cannot be known scientifically cannot be known. Horkheimer (1972) argued that this was because “science and its interpretation are two different things,” presenting an argument that the equation of science with knowledge rejects metascience, which is the only way through which science can be critiqued and its limitations exposed. Ironically, according to the Frankfurt School, positivists had wrongly claimed to have located the essence of knowledge in science (Bryant, 1985).
- The rejection of the positivist conception of science: according to what Keat calls “the positivist conception of science,” science tries to explain and predict observable phenomena by creating universal laws that apply in all regions of space and time (Keat, 1981). The Frankfurt School offers objections amounting to the idea that there are many ways phenomena are connected and thus many valid accounts of them and that it is wrong to reduce these accounts to one. To the critical theorists countering positivists, there are structures and processes limited by history that cause observable phenomena but whose existence can only be inferred (Bryant, 1985).
- The rejection of any theory-neutral observation language: the Frankfurt School dismissed the Vienna Circle’s quest for a theory-neutral observation language for science, saying that everyone who does science makes inquiries about the world in a way that will always be in relation to their own ideas around understanding, the presuppositions of their culture, and the theories they explicitly acknowledge (Bryant, 1985).
- The rejection of empiricism: According to the Frankfurt School, what scientists consider to be empirical is really the popular opinion of scientists at the time (Adorno, 2000). Theory cannot completely account for theoretical findings because the testing of theories involves deforming and breaking parts of the theory, and all empirical research happens in a world where theory and reality are out of joint in a way where people can choose to change the world so that it conforms better to what is possible (Bryant, 1985).
- The rejection of any conception of the unity of the sciences: the Frankfurt School’s critique of positivism also rejects the idea that all sciences operate in the same way by arguing that there are differences between the physical objects studied by natural sciences and the objectification of the mind studied by the social sciences (Bryant, 1985).
- The rejection of an exclusively instrumental reason: the Frankfurt School further critiques positivism by equivocating reason and instrumental reason. Thinking of reason as just a calculation of the most appropriate means to pre-given ends is dangerous because it threatens to degenerate into the philosophy of “might is right” (Bryant, 1985).
- The rejection of the dualism of facts and values: finally, the Frankfurt School rejects that there is a dualism of facts and values. In this view, social science must have values (Bryant, 1985).
Instrumental Positivism
Positivism has also taken on a number of forms in American Sociology. The most distinctive of these, what Bryant (1985) calls “Instrumental Positivism,” came into prominence in the late 1920s before enduring more intense criticisms from the 1960s and 1970s onward.
American sociology developed its own instrumental strand. It differed from the French tradition and the Vienna Circle. Hinkle (2020) traces its roots to a founding theory of American sociology: the view that human behavior is itself evolutionary behavior.
Surveys and empirical work on social conditions also shaped American sociology in its early stages.
Instrumental positivism has several key characteristics (Bryant, 1985):
-
The preoccupation with the refinement of statistical techniques and research instrumentation: American sociologists such as Giddings introduced developments in statistics from other countries to American sociology as well as creating new statistical techniques themselves (Bryant, 1985).
-
The endorsement of a nominalist or individualistic conception of society: according to Hinkle and Hinkle (Andrews, 1955), American sociology assumes that the structure of all social groups is a consequence of the individuals in those groups and that all social phenomena come from the motivations of these individuals. According to this view, individuals are the main “objects” of sociological study (Bryant, 1985).
-
The affinity with induction, verificationism, and incrementalism: because American sociology was developed largely on questionnaires and surveys (Horowitz, 1964), instrumental positivism is inductive, verificationist, and incrementalist. This means that facts about social life can be verified by correctly conducted research and that all verifiable facts add to the cumulative development of social science. Further, in this view, laws about social behavior can be verified by experience, although later thinkers, such as Hempel, have argued that inductively obtained laws could also be valid (Hempel, 1958).
-
The linkage of a dichotomy of facts and values with a conception of value-freedom: instrumental positivism was determined to be objective, which came to a determination to exclude value judgments from claims to knowledge (Gouldner, 1962). To American instrumental positivists, not only were the values of the people conducting sociology separable from sociological facts and research, but this separation was essential to an objective science (Bryant, 1985).
-
The prominence of team research and the multiplication of centers or institutes of applied social research: finally, instrumental positivists tended to assemble research teams in centers that often did contract research. This had the consequence that those doing sociological research in America were those who could afford to have an established and well-placed team (Bryant, 1985).
Criticism and Controversy
Several points of contention run through positivism’s key principles:
- Scientific Method Applied to Society: positivism treats subjective human behavior as an object like any other, a comparison (Giddens, 1974) that has drawn sustained debate over how far the generalization can honestly go (Bryant, 1985).
- The Search for Universal Laws: positivism assumes sociology should produce laws as timeless as the natural sciences’, but social patterns may be bound to their own historical period and culture.
- Sociology as a “Technical” Enterprise: treating sociological knowledge as purely instrumental risks evading the moral questions sociology was meant to help answer (Giddens, 1974).
Scientific Method Applied to Society
Positivism assumes something bold. The methods natural scientists use, it says, can simply be applied to sociology.
Subjective human experience is treated as no barrier. A person’s behavior becomes an object, in the same way that a falling rock is an object in the natural world (Giddens, 1974).
Critics have long pushed back. Bryant (1985) documents considerable debate over how far sociologists can generalize human behavior before the generalization stops being genuinely representative.
Some go further still. They question whether conclusions drawn from these “adaptations” of human behavior deserve the label positivist at all.
The dispute runs deep. There is still little agreement on exactly what sociology is supposed to adopt from the natural sciences, or how.
The debate is not just academic. It shapes how much confidence any single positivist study deserves.
The Search for Universal Laws
Positivism also presupposes a destination. Sociological investigation should end in a set of laws, comparable to those natural scientists establish, describing human behavior.
Many sociologists find this troubling. Natural laws are treated as holding true regardless of time or place.
Social laws may not work that way. They can be bound to the particular historical period and culture in which they were produced.
A pattern found in one society at one moment may simply not generalize elsewhere. This is more than an abstract worry.
If social “laws” are really historically specific regularities, not universal ones, positivism’s central promise is harder to keep.
That promise was that disciplined observation yields the same durable, general knowledge the natural sciences produce. A law bound to one time and place is not the kind of law Comte set out to find.
Sociology as a “Technical” Enterprise
Positivism’s assumption that sociology is fundamentally technical has itself proved controversial. It implies that sociological knowledge is “instrumental” in form.
Sociological findings, on this view, carry no weight for policy. They “do not carry any logically given implications for practical policy for the pursuit of values” (Giddens, 1974).
Some call this an evasion. It lets sociology describe how society works while staying silent on what should be done about it.
Taken with the Frankfurt School’s critique discussed above, this helps explain positivism’s decline. Positivist methods have had relatively little direct influence on sociology since the 1970s.
Even so, the broader ambition never vanished. The wish to study society scientifically has never entirely disappeared from the discipline.
The stakes are real. A discipline that only describes, never evaluates, risks leaving its hardest questions to someone else.
Contemporary Research
Positivism’s core promise is cumulative, verifiable knowledge about society. That promise has been tested directly over the past decade.
Revisiting Durkheim’s Suicide Data
Aim (Condorelli, 2016): to test one question. Does Durkheim’s theory, that suicide rises in step with modernization, still hold against more than a century of Italian suicide data?
Method: the study applied nonlinear dynamical-systems modeling to Italian suicide statistics spanning 1875 to 2010. It treated suicide as an aggregate, population-level process.
Findings: the results were not linear. Growth instead followed a “restrained increase process,” in which rates stabilized or declined across industrialized societies from the mid-20th century onward, despite continued modernization.
Conclusion: the social system behaves as a complex adaptive structure. It self-organizes and adjusts to modernization’s effects, reconciling rather than refuting Durkheim’s core insight that suicide is socially patterned.
Does Positivist Research Replicate?
Positivism’s founding wager was replicability. Any correctly conducted, rigorous empirical finding should hold up when tested again.
A large project put this to the test. It replicated 21 experiments published in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015.
The result: just 62% replicated. Effect sizes among the replicated studies averaged roughly half the size originally reported (Camerer et al., 2018).
Computational Social Science: The Newest Heir
The fastest-growing heir to positivism’s ambition is computational social science. It mines large-scale behavioral data for measurable patterns at a scale Comte could not have imagined (Lazer et al., 2020).
This comes with new problems. Non-representative samples, data controlled by private companies, and a shortage of transparent, auditable methodology all limit what it can claim.
Read together, the wager is not simply vindicated or refuted. Modern tools can still recover a genuine social pattern in a century-old dataset (Condorelli, 2016).
Yet the same period shows a meaningful share of positivist findings fail to replicate (Camerer et al., 2018).
Real-World Applications of Positivism
Criminology and Criminal Justice
Positivism’s most direct sociological legacy is positivist criminology. It treats crime as open to the same empirical methods used to study any other social phenomenon.
Its founding figure, Cesare Lombroso, had a bold claim. He argued that criminals could be identified by measurable physical traits held over from earlier stages of human evolution.
That claim is now discredited. Modern science rejects it entirely. It survives mainly as a warning: a case of positivist methods used without positivism’s own commitment to rigorous, falsifiable testing.
Positivist criminology’s more lasting contribution is methodological. Researchers rely on official crime statistics, such as recorded offences, convictions, and arrest rates, as their basic data.
This rests on one assumption: that these figures track the real level of criminal activity closely enough to support general claims about who offends and why.
That assumption is itself controversial. Victimization surveys repeatedly show that only a fraction of offences are ever recorded. This gap is sometimes called the “hidden figure” of unrecorded crime, a critique developed further by radical criminology.
Health and Clinical Research
Nurse-researcher training routinely presents positivism as one of two or three foundational paradigms new researchers must choose between (Ryan, 2018).
Much clinical and health-services research still follows this logic. It favors closed measurement instruments and controlled comparison.
It also carries an explicit ambition: keeping the researcher’s own values from shaping what a study concludes.
This stance runs deep in the clinic itself. Clinicians are trained to treat a patient’s signs and symptoms as objective data.
These are measured and classified apart from what the illness means to the person living it. The split runs deep.
It separates the body’s measurable data from the patient’s own experience of being ill.
This is the clinical mirror of a wider methodological split in sociology. One side measures behavior from outside; the other tries to understand what it means to the person living it.
Demography, Social Policy, and Computational Social Science
Comte’s and Quetelet’s shared ambition was a science of society. It was built on counting, comparing, and aggregating.
That ambition survives most directly in modern demography and social-policy research. Governments themselves supply the data: statistics on population, unemployment, and social conditions used for evidence-based policymaking.
The logic is the same one Durkheim’s Suicide pioneered. Reliable, comparable counts across time and place can reveal patterns invisible at the level of any single case.
The most direct twenty-first-century heir to that same ambition is computational social science. Researchers use large-scale behavioral data, from social-media activity to mobility records.
They search for measurable, generalizable patterns in social behavior. The scale is one Comte could never have imagined.
This development brings its own considerable obstacles. These are examined further in the Contemporary Research section below.
References
Adorno, T. W. (2000). Sociology and empirical research.
Andrews, H. L. (1955). Hinkle and Hinkle: The Development of Modern Sociology: Its Nature and Growth in the United States. Edited by Eugene A. Wilkening (Book Review). Rural Sociology, 20(1), 72.
Bryant, C. G. (1985). Positivism in social theory and research. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Bryant, C. G. (1985). Positivism in social theory and research. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Nave, G., Nosek, B. A., Pfeiffer, T., Altmejd, A., Buttrick, N., Chan, T., Chen, Y., Forsell, E., Gampa, A., Heikensten, E., Hummer, L., Imai, T., Isaksson, S., Manfredi, D., Rose, J., Wagenmakers, E.-J., & Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z
Comte, A., & Lemaire, P. (1933). Cours de philosophie positive: 1re et 2me leçons.
Comte, A., & Lemaire, P. (1933). Cours de philosophie positive: 1re et 2me leçons.
Condorelli, R. (2016). Social complexity, modernity and suicide: An assessment of Durkheim’s suicide from the perspective of a non-linear analysis of complex social systems. SpringerPlus, 5(1), Article 374. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1799-z
Durkheim, E. (1938). The rules of the sociological method (S. A. Solovay & J. H. Mueller, Trans.; G. E. G. Catlin, Ed.). The Free Press.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology (J. A. Spaulding & G. Simpson, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1897)
Giddens, A. (Ed.). (1974). Positivism and sociology. London: Heinemann.
Gouldner, A. M. (1962). The Myth of a Value-Free Sociology, 9 SOC.
Hempel, C. G. (1958). The theoretician’s dilemma: A study in the logic of theory construction.
Hinkle, R. C. (2020). Founding Theory of American Sociology 1881–1915. Routledge.
Horkheimer, M. (1972). The latest attack on metaphysics. Critical theory: Selected essays, 132-187.
Horowitz, I. L. (1964). Max Weber and the spirit of American sociology. The Sociological Quarterly, 5(4), 344-354.
Keat, R. (1981). The politics of social theory Habermas, Freud and the critique of positivism.
Keat, R., & Urry, J. (1975). Social Theory as. Science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 83.
Kołakowski, L. (1972). Positivist philosophy from Hume to the Vienna Circle.
Kołakowski, L. (1972). Positivist philosophy from Hume to the Vienna Circle.
Lazer, D. M. J., Pentland, A., Watts, D. J., Aral, S., Athey, S., Contractor, N., Freelon, D., Gonzalez-Bailon, S., King, G., Margetts, H., Nelson, A., Salganik, M. J., Strohmaier, M., Vespignani, A., & Wagner, C. (2020). Computational social science: Obstacles and opportunities. Science, 369(6507), 1060–1062. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz8170
Mills, C. W. (2000). The sociological imagination. Oxford University Press.
Riley, D. (2007). The paradox of positivism. Social Science History, 31(1), 115-126.
Willer, D., & Willer, J. (1973). Systematic empiricism: critique of a pseudoscience. Prentice Hall.
Wolff, K. H., & Durkheim, E. (1960). Emile Durkheim, 1858-1917: a collection of essays, with translations and a bibliography. The Ohio State University Press.
