PHILOSOPHY CAPSTONE

Reduction of Sociology to Biology

Brendan Walters

12/12/2014

Social situations, whether they are simple or complex, surround everyday human life.

Aristotle once wrote, “Man is by nature a social animal.”1 By this he means humans are

naturally social; that they yearn to be in a group of people as a social setting. This can be seen

in several examples of human life. A basketball game, for instance, appears to be a normal and

quite simple social concept. Essentially, two teams play against each other by using a ball on a

court. However, when viewed with more care this seemingly simple situation becomes

incredibly complex. Several aspects of this situation are often overlooked or unnoticed because

1 Barker, Ernest. Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Ernest Barker provides a translation of Aristotle’s “Politics.” The above quotation is taken out of context. The entire quote reads, “Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god.”

humans become accustomed to them. If a person actually delves into this situation they will see

just how many moving parts come together to create this situation. Human elements in the

game include players, coaches, spectators, referees, trainers, and announcers. Even more than

human components, a person would find emotion, energy, comradery, cheering, and rivalry.

Within the game, they would undoubtedly hear whistles that indicate fouls, timeouts, and

other stoppages in play. When a foul is called, supporters of this team often become angered.

Conversely, when a team wins the game on a buzzer-beating, last-second shot, their supporters

become ecstatic and overcome with joy. A person witnessing these events might ponder as to

why such strong emotions are present when the game appears to be so trivial. The event of a

basketball game is much more complex than it originally seems.

After thorough contemplation of this event, a rather important and intriguing question

must be answered: can science adequately explain complex social situations? Much like the

basketball game, this is a loaded question; there is much more to it than initially meets the eye.

If science is to explain this social situation, it must account for all moving parts. For example, it

would be necessary for science to explain the interaction between the players, coaches,

referees, and crowd in the basketball game. The outcome of science adequately providing

explanation for this situation would indeed be beneficial. This would create the possibility of a

scientific study of human action and interaction within a group setting. Science has substantially

more knowledge of humans as individuals, in a biological sense, and studying humans in groups

would extend this seemingly linear knowledge.

Currently, science is actually applied to these complex social situations. Even with this

application, however, humans are still not being studied as collective groups. In social scenarios

such as the basketball game, human beings are thought of as individuals, separate from each

other. Each individual is added to create a sum that equals the addition of their singular parts.

This is essentially the view of biology in these social settings. Biology studies living organisms,

such as humans. Different areas that biology specifically studies include physiology, the

function of parts within an organism, anatomy, which is the bodily structure of an organism,

and morphology, or the relationship between the structures of an organism. There are several

more areas of biology, but they are all physical. With this in mind, biology provides an enormity

of information concerning the physical being of humans. However, it should not be utilized

when viewing a social situation, especially one that is complex.

The study of social sciences has been a target of much controversy for hundreds of

years. The very first advocate for an independent science to study social settings was Auguste

Comte. Comte was born in 1798 in France and grew up in the wake of the French Revolution.

He spent a majority of his life in France, and eventually died in 1857. As a philosopher, Comte

considered several different areas in his works. Much of his work, such as his political and

metaphysical ideas, has since been dismissed for a variety of reasons. However, the work he

has done for the social sciences continues to carry relevance in present times. Comte was

actually the first person to use the word “sociology” in writing. His view of the definition of

sociology is comparable to the modern definition. Sociology is viewed as the study of social

behaviors, its origins, development, organization, and institutions. Essentially, it is the job of a

sociologist to observe humans in social situations and attempt to find explanations in all of

these areas. Contrary to certain beliefs, Comte did not “create” sociology; rather, he gave the

study a name. He believed that the study had always existed and he was simply giving it a label.

Comte’s views on sociology were quite radical for his time, considering how little was known

about the subject. He believed that sociology was the last science among the scientific studies,

following the likes of physics, chemistry, biology, and perhaps even psychology. Comte was a

strong advocate for sociology’s status as a science. He wrote extensively on the subject in his

work titled “The Course on Positive Philosophy.” Within this work, Comte addressed several

issues of the time that held back sociology from being a science.

The argument concerning sociology’s status as a scientific study is one that has been

heavily debated since Comte first wrote about the study in the 1800s. One view that Comte

specifically argues against makes the claim that sociology is simply an extension of another

science: biology. This claim stated that sociology and all of its theories, laws, and observations

can be explained in biological terminology. This view follows a concept known as reductionism,

which is a well-known notion throughout science and philosophy. This view was initially seen as

a way to unify the sciences. Essentially, it states that scientific studies are manifested from each

other. Reductionists, or those who follow this concept, believe that all sciences can be reduced

to one study: physics. Reduction believes that physics, in this sense, is the universal language of

all scientific studies and their theories. This model creates a ladder of sciences, beginning with

physics, then progressing to chemistry, biology, and eventually the social sciences. The way this

concept can be understood in terms of sociology and biology follows a statement such as the

following: sociology reduces to biology when all of the truths, laws, and observations have been

translated, derived, or can be explained by biology2. This is the basis of the argument against

Comte’s sociology which he then attempts to refute.

A strong advocate for a reductionism view was Rudolf Carnap, who provides a positivist

view on reductionism. Although he was born three-and-a-half decades following the death of

Comte, his views are still quite relevant when considering Comte’s writings. Reductionism

existed in Comte’s era, but Carnap sums up the principle quite effectively. He is quoted as

saying, “…science is a unity, that all empirical statements can be expressed in a single language,

all states of affairs are of one kind and are known by the same method.” This statement

provides an accurate and efficient summary of the ideas found within reductionism.

Furthermore, Carnap believed that all linguistic sentences can be reduced into one common

and universal language. The common language he hypothesizes is physical language, or the

objects in space and time. This follows the reductionist theory that all sciences can be reduced

to physics. Carnap was obviously knowledgeable of the attempts made by Comte to defend

sociology and, considering his beliefs in reductionism, he disagreed with Comte. Carnap

strongly believed in sufficient, empirical evidence3 and that a physical language was ultimately

the universal language of all the sciences. Carnap argued that the social sciences rely too

heavily on subjectivity as a form of verification rather than objectivity. He thought that

sociological methods were problematic, and that sociology, if it wished to be a science, would

have to follow the scientific method as its way of verification. The views of Carnap should be

used alongside Comte’s argument because it is a very strong view of reductionism. If Comte is

2 Ney, Alyssa. "Reductionism." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed October 15, 2014.

3 Along with rejecting scientific studies as having their own language, Carnap also rendered metaphysics as

meaningless. He believed that metaphysical statements cannot possibly be valid because they are unable to be proved or disproved by experience.

able to adequately reject Carnap’s views, it can be inferred that he has essentially eliminated

any other view of reduction.

When addressing the claims made against sociology, Comte is almost forced to answer

two questions at once. The first concerns the claim that sociology is reducible to biology. This

question takes precedent in a section of “The Course on Positive Philosophy” entitled

“Sociology’s relation to biology.” The second question asks, “What if sociology is not at

science?” Although these questions read differently, a significant amount of overlap is certainly

present. Due to this fact, Comte attempts to answer both questions in his work. He advocates

for sociology to be a science as well as be irreducible to biology. Comte’s attempts to validate

sociology as a science are valiant, but the outcome of this question is irrelevant to the topic of

whether or not sociology is reducible. Even if it is found that sociology is not a science, this fact

does not take away from the work Comte has done to show that it is not reducible.

Comte sets a strong base in this section of his work. His conclusion can be found

towards the end of the section, and reads, “The true nature of sociology is evident enough from

what has been said. We see that it is not an appendix to biology, but a science by itself,

founded upon a distinct basis, while closely connected, from first to last, with biology.4” This

statement shows the confidence Comte has in the rest of his work done in the section. If he

believes that what he has said is “evident enough,” then he must have sufficiently examined all

claims made against sociology, produced his own arguments, and taken necessary precautions

to leave his argument invulnerable to attack. This statement essentially summarizes Comte’s

4 Martineau, Harriet. "Social Science's Relation to Biology." In The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte: Freely

Translated and Condensed, 487. New York: Calvin Blanchard, 1858.

entire argument against reductionism. He believes that although sociology is ultimately

manifested from biology, the two should still remain independent studies. He even admits that

they should be closely connected, but this does not necessarily mean they can be understood in

the same language. Another way of interpreting this is to follow Comte’s notion that biology

provides a basis for sociology, but not an entire way of understanding. The area of sociology

remains independent because it has its own theories, laws, and observations separate from

those of biology.

Even with this in mind, Comte is quite aware of potential limitations to sociology,

especially when it is considered the depth of knowledge on the subject during his time of

writing. In regard to this, he states, “…the intellectual and moral conditions of human existence

are as real and as imperative as its material condition, though more difficult to estimate, and

therefore less known.5” In this statement, Comte admits that there is very little knowledge of

sociology, especially for the time he was writing. He did understand that sociology was merely

at its beginning; he knew that there was much more to the study that was yet to be discovered.

Given what little contemplation existed on the matter of sociology, Comte realized that his duty

was to address important issues for the sake of sociology’s future rather than solve them

completely. He knew that sociology was not particularly understood at his time. Because of this,

he held the job of both educating people on the subject and making a compelling case for why

it should be considered an independent study. With the limitations on sociological knowledge

at his time, Comte knew that any argument he made would evolve as sociology changed.

5 Martineau, Harriet. "Social Science's Relation to Biology." In The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte: Freely

Translated and Condensed, 487. New York: Calvin Blanchard, 1858.

However, it is apparent that he believes this fact does not provide grounds to dismiss the study

as its own independent science. He believes that human behavior in a social situation, even

though it cannot be physically seen, is still just as real as the physical elements of human life.

Essentially, even though he knows knowledge of sociology is limited, especially during his time,

Comte thinks the study is imperative and should be distinguished from any other science.

Comte’s response to the reductionist theories comes within his work “The Course on

Positive Philosophy” in the aforementioned section. This work was written in French and was

translated into a work titled “The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte”6. In this work, Comte

writes at length about how absurd it is to attempt to reduce sociology to biology. Even so,

Comte believed that each scientific area manifests from another, beginning with physics, and

eventually from biology to psychology and sociology7. This does not imply, however, that he

thought sociology was reducible. The first step he takes for this argument is to differentiate

society and groups from individuals.

To Comte, society is, in his own words, a “collective organism.” Essentially, he believes

that groups are, in fact, organisms themselves. For instance, a family is not simply a group of

people; it is a whole that is made up of independent individuals. Comte says that these social

6 The English translation of “The Course of Positive Philosophy” was done by Harriet Martineau, who lived from

1802-1876, around the same time as Auguste Comte. Martineau translated Comte’s original work from French to English. Martineau’s translation is titled “The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte.” This translation was completed in 1853 and was reissued by Cambridge University Press in 2009. “The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte” is freely condensed and translated by Martineau. Considering the era in which Martineau wrote this translation, there has been much speculation as to whether she was attempting to sound her own voice through the work. This theory has since been put to rest for the actual content in the book. Martineau’s introduction is still considered to be her own original work, but the translation and condensation is now universally accepted as an accurate display of Auguste Comte’s work. Comte was notoriously a poor writer, which makes a translation very difficult. Even so, it is thought that Martineau’s translation is adequate in interpreting and portraying Comte’s actual views. 7 Martineau, Harriet. "Social Science's Relation to Biology." In The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte: Freely

Translated and Condensed, 487. New York: Calvin Blanchard, 1858.

organisms differ significantly from an organism such as a plant or animal. The latter is a

physiological unit made up of entities, such as organs, which are neither free nor conscious8.

This is a key difference when considering different organisms. The organism of a family consists

of individuals that are both free and conscious. Because of this, the entities making up a family

have the capability of being much closer than those that make up a plant or animal. This

closeness is what makes the family an organism itself. The family, in this instance, is an analogy

for humanity as a whole. Comte says that individual humans are “an organ of the Great Being,”

where the great being is representative of humanity.

Humans do not simply exist together in this scenario; they work and thrive together to

create this organism. Comte says that humans act differently as a part of this great organism

than they would as an individual. Due to this, the relationship between people is much more

intimate than their physiological make-up. It is undeniable that human physiology is essential

and ought to be studied; humans would cease to survive if their organs were not in harmony.

However, a society cannot be broken down into terms of each individual’s physiological being.

If reductionism were to have its way, this is exactly what would occur; a society would break

down to individuals, and the individuals to their own make-up. The complexity of the situation

is overlooked, and the moving parts oversimplified. The society is not looked at as a whole, as it

should be according to Comte. If this way of studying society is to be followed, then progress of

human societies would be nonexistent. Knowledge of individuals essentially puts a cap on the

progress of humanity. There is much more beyond the individual that must be explored.

8 Park, Robert E. "Sociology and the Social Sciences." American Journal of Sociology: 406-13.

Therefore, the focus for the sake of this progress should not be on the individuals, but rather

the whole organism of society.

Unfortunately for Comte, the basis of this part of his argument is attacked quite simply

by reductionists and biologists. The way this is achieved is by accusing sociology of being

incapable of producing concrete results from scientific experiments. Basically, it is acceptable

for Comte to believe society is a collective organism consisting of various human beings, but

there is no definite way of studying this complex organism as a whole. Essentially, this whole

must be broken down into small enough pieces that can be adequately studied. For this reason,

this is perhaps the weakest part of Comte’s entire argument. He leaves himself vulnerable to

this exact accusation and nowhere seems to provide an explanation or response, let alone a

counterargument. One possibility for this is the time which Comte was writing; there may not

have been a distinct scientific method for Comte to anticipate. If a universal understanding of

the scientific method had not yet been reached, he would have very little knowledge as to what

the scientific method entailed, and therefore would have been unable to defend against any

possible accusation.

Regardless of the circumstances concerning Comte’s knowledge of the scientific

method, current sociology must form some way to follow this method if it aspires to deny

reductionist theories. This fact is imperative to sociology because it would show that the study

does actually have its own theories and laws independent from any other study, namely

biology. Issues arise in this area because concrete data is seemingly difficult to produce. The

method looks at individuals, so in sociology, Comte’s “collective organism” would have to be

studied. The main problem is finding a sufficient way of performing research of this caliber. The

scientific method is set up in such a way that an experiment should be able to be reproduced

with the exact same environment to allow for effectively the same data. In a chemistry lab, very

particular amounts of elements and chemicals are used repeatedly in experiments. These

experiments tend to produce results that can easily be reproduced with the same

measurements and environment. In a complex social setting, however, reproduction of

essentially the same results is a very difficult task. It is near impossible to recreate a complex

social situation in an exact manner, so it becomes very difficult for sociology to produce exact

results in an experiment. If sociology wishes to dismiss these charges, it must find a way to

incorporate the scientific method effectively into its experiments.

Comte’s next response is aimed more towards biologists who are not true reductionists

rather than reductionists. Essentially, these biologists view their own science as an independent

study that is not reducible to the likes of chemistry. Rather, they believe that biology simply

manifests from chemistry and still maintains its own ideas. However, these biologists claim that

sociology is both a science and reducible to biology. To Comte, this is a total contradiction of

historical comparisons. Essentially, he believes that when these biologists attempt to reduce

sociology to biology, they are ignoring a very important historical aspect. He states that these

biologists “exalt their own science at the expense of that which follows it that physicists and

chemists have shown in regard to biology.” In more basic terms, these biologists will allow

sociology to be its own science as long as it is reducible to biology. Comte believes that when

biologists do this, they are contradicting themselves due to a historical pattern. What he means

by this is that biologists believe their scientific study is manifested from another science and

still maintains scientific status, but the same is not true for sociology. Comte is dumfounded by

this reasoning, saying that if biology can still be considered an independent science, sociology

should as well.

Following this view on history, Comte also says that if this historical comparison within

the sciences is neglected, then social evolution cannot be understood. The natural sciences

assist in the evolution of man as an individual, and the social sciences must exist so that

evolution can be understood in a social manner. Social evolution, to Comte, is “the gradual and

continuous influence of generations upon each other.9” What he means by this is that society is

always changing due to historical influences. However, these changes are slow and small at the

time they are happening. Over a longer period of time, though, the changes become more

obvious. Comte says that these changes become more apparent when historical analysis takes

place. Past generations must be examined and compared with present generations; only then

will the vast changes in society be prominent. This idea is closely related with Comte’s view on

the progress of humanity. Progress and evolution were very important concepts to Comte.

Since he believed sociology could substantially assist in these notions, and perhaps even move

them further than biology ever could, it is apparent as to why he advocates so relentlessly for

the study.

This area provides perhaps the soundest part of Comte’s argument. Although it is

against a very specific group of people, it is quite difficult to deny. Essentially, these biologists

cannot both give sociology status as a science and make the claim that it is reducible. To do this

9 Martineau, Harriet. "Social Science's Relation to Biology." In The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte: Freely

Translated and Condensed, 488. New York: Calvin Blanchard, 1858.

would be a direct contradiction of biology itself. If it is the case that biology manifests from

chemistry and is still considered a science, the same should then be true for sociology. If

biologists cannot accept this fact, then they are unable to allow their field of study to maintain

its status as a scientific study10.

Even though sociology comes last in the steps of the sciences, Comte believed it was the

most important. This follows along with his belief that history must not be ignored. As far as

history is concerned, Comte believed that the methodological sciences were ineffective. He

states that every historical fact is a unique event that has a specific date and location11. In other

words, history never repeats itself, which is a rather difficult statement to overthrow. If history

were to truly repeat itself, every detail of an even would have to be the exact same, including

the date and location. This, obviously, is impossible, thus giving historical facts and events

individuality and uniqueness. With this being the case, Comte concludes that sciences such as

biology and chemistry cannot possibly study historical events. His reasoning is that since the

event already occurred and cannot be repeated, no other science besides sociology can

possibly study them.

This section appears to be Comte’s only attempt at neglecting the scientific method.

However, the more likely thought process was probably to find a scenario that would make

sociology necessary. This provides an interesting argument for Comte that is more complex for

10

Reductionists would undoubtedly counter this part of Comte’s argument. They would simply state that biology and sociology are both scientific studies and reducible to the study beneath them on their ladder. Comte was most likely aware of this easy and predictable counter argument at the time he wrote this section. Because of this, he directs this section towards a certain group of biologists rather than reductionists. Comte was attempting to see all possible angles that could be detrimental to his argument, so he felt that it was necessary to address different arguments and points to different groups. Comte would have been aware that all biologists were not necessarily reductionists, so he considers the views of each of these groups in his works. 11 Park, Robert E. "Sociology and the Social Sciences." American Journal of Sociology: 406-13.

reductionists than it initially appears. Complex historical events, especially social scenarios,

cannot possibly be reproduced exactly. For this reason, they are very difficult to study through

experimentation. Comte believes that sociology does not necessarily need to experiment with

these situations; viewing the historical events in some other sense, personal accounts or videos

perhaps, would suffice. In this sense, the counterargument of reductionists and biologists

would yet again bring up the concept of the scientific method. Since this historical event cannot

be studied through experimentation, sociology cannot possibly produce adequate results.

However, this leads to a conundrum for reductionists and biologists alike. If historical

events cannot be studied by using experimentation, then knowledge about history would be

impossible. The basis for this is quite simple: if the historical occurrences cannot be duplicated

and thus not experimented, then no science can effectively study history. Due to this, the issue

becomes not merely for sociology, but science as a whole. If science is to have knowledge of

historical social events, it must find a way to study it effectively. Comte believes sociology can

be of assistance in this area, but fails to adequately find a successful way to apply sociology to

historical events. This does not mean, however, that this part of Comte’s argument is wrong;

rather, it simply means he is not sufficiently convincing with his argument. Sociology may be

the answer to this problem, but that issue now lies in the hands of modern sociologists.

At the end of the passage about sociology’s relation to biology, Comte provides a

specific example pertaining to the necessity of sociology as its own independent study. To do

this, Comte explains how society is viewed in biological terms and why this should not be done.

The passage states:

“Thus, in a biological view, all existing political doctrines are radically vicious, because, in

their irrational estimate of political phenomena, they suppose qualities to exist among ruler

and the ruled, – here a habitual perverseness or imbecility, and there a spirit of concert or

calculation, - which are incompatible with positive ideas of human nature, and which would

impute pathological monstrosity to whole classes; which is simply absurd.12”

In this section, it is very clear that Comte does not agree with the biological view of

society. Biology, to Comte, is assigning particular attributes to whole groups of people. In his

example, Comte says that with the biological view all rulers would have particular attributes

and, likewise, those who are ruled have similar attributes. In Comte’s era, monarchies were a

popular form of government, which provides the basis for his example. Essentially, the

biological view would assume every ruler to have similar attributes because they are in the

same class. Comte believes this is outlandish. Simply because a group of people share a role, as

a ruler, for instance, does not imply that they share a particular quality.

In this example, Comte is basically stating that not all rulers should be in power and not

all of those who are ruled should be ruled. Perhaps a particular ruler is not fit to have power.

This does not change the fact that they are still a ruler. A ruler like this, to Comte, ought to be

someone who is ruled. On the other hand, there may be someone among the ruled who would

make a better ruler. This person should have the role of a ruler as opposed to being ruled. This

is apparent even in modern societies where there is a government other than monarchy. In

America, for example, the power lies in the hands of the American people because of its

12

Martineau, Harriet. "Social Science's Relation to Biology." In The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte: Freely Translated and Condensed, 489. New York: Calvin Blanchard, 1858.

democratic government. This form of government is supposed to be able to decide the best

ruler and put them into power, essentially eliminating rulers who should not have this title.

Theoretically, a democracy allows people who ought to rule the ability to do so. However, it is

apparent that this is not always the case. There have been several presidents of America who

have made detrimental mistakes that could have been avoided if they were denied the power

to rule. Comte believes that in a situation such as this one, a person among the ruled may have

been a better ruler13.

This example is essentially Comte showing what must be true if only the biological view

is accepted or if sociology is reduced to biology. Even when groups are studied, biology

searches for commonalities among individuals. This is the exact notion that Comte has been

attempting to disprove in his works. If the reductionist theory is accepted, then social situations

would be broken down into individuals, which Comte believes should not occur. The basketball

game once again provides a great example to support Comte’s claims. If sociology were

reduced to biology, all aspects of the game would be studied as individual bodies, separated

and to be examined biologically. For instance, the players would be assessed by physical

attributes, such as height, weight, hydration, and coordination. The decision making of the

coaches would be attributed to their physical well-being and brain activity during the game.

However, this approach only works for individuals and not complex social situations.

13

Even though this is the case for democracy, a reductionist might say that since the power lies in the hands of the people, there are no rulers or ruled. However, this may simply be a case of poor wording that can be attributed to the time Comte was writing. Perhaps a better way of understanding this example would be to call the groups the leaders and the led. The leader, of course, is the president and those who are led are every other citizen. Biology, to Comte, would then assume a commonality of traits among the leaders and the led. The same principles can be utilized regardless of the terminology. Monarchies were much more popular in Comte’s time and place, which may provide explanation as to why he did not use this terminology. The terms rulers and ruled were simply used to portray Comte’s original ideas.

Sociology, on the other hand, searches for answers to aspects of the game that are not

physical. It attempts to view the entire basketball game as an organism itself. The game in this

situation is Comte’s collective organism. Sociology delves into what cannot be seen, such as the

emotions of the crowd, players, and coaches, and why these feelings are present and the effect

they have on the game. Biology is unable to view the entire situation as a whole. This becomes

problematic because each individual would be examined separately and added together to

make the whole. It is the sociological belief that these individuals create an entity that is greater

than the sum of its parts. This concept is known as emergence. Emergence is sociology’s way of

explaining the relationship between an individual and a collective14. This is a core issue for

science, especially sociology since it attempts to study the collective. Although Comte never

uses the exact terminology of emergence, it can be implied in his work. He believes, like most

sociologists, that simply adding together components of a social situation will not result in an

accurate display of the whole. Essentially, it is the view of sociology that the sum of a whole is

greater than the addition of its individual parts. If sociology were reduced to biology, this

statement would carry no weight because biology studies individuals and adds each part to

create a whole.

In the example of the basketball game, emergence is quite evident. If sociology were

reduced to biological terms, the team with more talent in their players and coaches would

undoubtedly win the game. The talent of each player and coach would be added together, and

the team that was found to have the greater amount of talent would win. However, this is

14

Sawyer, R. Keith. "Emergence in Sociology: Contemporary Philosophy of Mind and Some Implications for Sociological Theory." American Journal of Sociology 107, no. 3 (2001): 551-85.

clearly not always the case. Often times, a team with collectively more talent may lose a game

due to their inability to play with togetherness. The opposing team may not contain the more

talented individuals, but often times they will win because they create a collective organism

that is greater than each of their individual parts added together. The outcome of a game is

often predicted before the game takes place. Even if biology found a way to effectively study

each team and make a highly educated guess at the outcome, sociology will still be necessary as

long as one instance occurs where the prediction was incorrect. Although it may come rather

close in the future, biology will never have the ability to accurately predict every single

outcome in these situations, rendering sociology a necessary science.

On the surface, it would appear that reductionism provides a compelling argument

against sociology. There is an enormous amount of knowledge in the science of biology

compared to sociology, a fact that Comte freely admits. Studying social situations with this

knowledge would be a simple solution. Biological knowledge is already quite thorough, so

applying this to individuals within a group appears to be the obvious answer. However, Comte

denies this and instead suggests that the study of sociology can view this social situation in a

way that biology is unable to. If biological knowledge were to be used, knowledge of groups

would essentially be superficial due to the fact that biology studies groups as individuals.

Eventually, this knowledge would cease to progress. There is only a certain amount that can be

known about individuals before this knowledge reaches its capacity. By using biology to study

groups, science is limiting itself to knowledge only of individuals rather than a social situation as

a whole.

Given the era in which he defended sociology, Comte’s argument for sociology to be

irreducible to biology was quite strong. Comte was the first person to vouch for sociology to

have this status, and in doing so he sparked a debate that has lasted centuries and is still not

fully resolved. If sociology were found to be completely reducible to biology, then this

argument would be resolved. Likewise, if Comte or any other sociologist made a fully

convincing argument for sociology to be independent of biology, the debate would have

already ended. This is clearly not the case even today. Reductionists still believe that all of

sociology’s theories, truths, and observations can be explained in biological terms, and

sociologists deem this impossible.

Although Comte’s argument for sociology may not have been entirely convincing, he still

addresses questions that were relevant for his time and still carry this relevance today. Even

though he did not end the debate concerning the reduction of sociology to biology, he brings

up many valid points that ought to be considered by current sociologists and reductionists.

With this in mind, there are also areas where Comte’s argument may be improved for modern

sociology. For instance, current sociologists should attempt to find a way to apply the scientific

method to their studies and experiments. If sociology were able to apply this method, this

would help greatly in the argument concerning reduction. Sociology would be able to show that

it does obtain theories, laws, and observations that are fully independent of biology. The work

that Comte has done for sociology should not be forgotten, but it should be improved to

provide a more compelling argument for modern sociology.

Whether or not sociology should be reduced to biology has been debated since Comte’s

time and continues to be the center of much contest even today. In particular, one argument

made against sociology is that it is completely reducible to biology. For sociology to be reduced

to biology, all of its truths, laws, and observations must be able to be fully explained in

biological terms. Comte does not believe that sociology can be understood as this. He argues

that sociology should be an independent science because biologists fail to follow the historical

evolution of the sciences and that a social setting is much more than the sum of its consisting

individuals. As the father of sociology, Comte obviously made significant contributions to the

subject. He addressed many concerns brought against sociology, and although he did not

effectively put these concerns to rest, he raised several valid points that will assist sociologists

continuing his fight today.

References

Barker, Ernest. Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Martineau, Harriet. "Social Science's Relation to Biology." In The Positive Philosophy of Auguste

Comte: Freely Translated and Condensed. New York: Calvin Blanchard, 1858.

Ney, Alyssa. "Reductionism." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed October 15, 2014.

Park, Robert E. "Sociology and the Social Sciences." American Journal of Sociology: 406-13.

Sawyer, R. Keith. "Emergence in Sociology: Contemporary Philosophy of Mind and Some

Implications for Sociological Theory." American Journal of Sociology 107, no. 3 (2001):

551-85.