# data[].attributes.body
1. What are the critical elements in scientific thinking?
Theoretical thinking, and logical assessment of arguments, systematic empirical investigations, rigorous analysis of data, and commitment to publishing research findings to develop a body of cumulative knowledge.

2. Can social and natural sciences be scientific in the same way?
No humans are self-aware beings who confer meaning and purpose on what they do

3. What are the advantages for sociological researchers compared to biologists?  Provide some examples?
Sociologists can talk and directly asks questions from the objects of their research

eg.Sociologist can do some survey.

4. What are some of the difficulties encountered by social scientists that natural scientists do not face?
Dealing with human participants can be verychallenging as people who are aware that their activities are being scrutinised and observed by researchers may alter their usualbehaviour and opinions,

thus invalidating the researcher’s conclusions.

# data[].attributes.body
1.certain key elements, including theoretical thinking, and logical assessment of arguments, systematic empirical investigations, rigorous analysis of data, and commitment to publishing research findings to develop a body of cumulative knowledge.

2.No, because people, social groups and societies are very different from the other animals and events in physical world.Especially when humans are self-aware beings who confer meaning and purpose on what they do.

3.The advantage for sociologists is that they can talk and directly asks questions from the objects of their research, something that biologists and chemists would not be able to do.

For example, sociologists are able to collect data through sources like survey and ethnography. Sociologist can conduct surveys while biologists can't conduct a survey on animals. You won't be able to ask a chimpanzee to fill in 30 questions for you. Biologists have to spend more time in interpreting the behaviors or emotions of animals to give a conclusion to their research. Sociologists can do the research more effectively and efficiently.

4.Sociologists may receive invalid information. Human participants might be aware that their activities are being scrutinized and observed by researchers, therefore, alter their usual behavior and opinions, thus invalidating the researcher's conclusions. People participants may consciously or unconsciously try to provide answers or behave in a way that they think it pleases the researcher.

# data[].attributes.body
1.Theoretical thinking and logical assessment

Arguments, systematic empirical investigations, rigorous data analysis, as well

Committed to publishing research results

2.should not expect sociologists to adopt exactly the same method of investigation as the natural sciences.

This is because people, social groups and societies are, in significant ways, very different from other animals and events in the physical world

3.an advantage for sociologists, and that is that they can talk and directly ask questions from the objects of their research, something that biologists and chemists would not be able to do.

example:illnesses or social factors ( sociologist can investigate and understand the issue by questioning or physical interactions)

4.sociologists are at a distinct disadvantage, as trying to get inside the mind and understanding someone’s intentions can be really difficult (human have critical thinking and mindset are complex)

People have their own thoughts. They will act according to their own preferences and human behavior is much more complex. So sociologists may have to do more experiments to avoid differentiation and have a lot more difficulty summarizing answers. For the flora and fauna of nature, these are things they do not have. So naturalists don't have to deal with this.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The basic steps of the scientific method are: make an observation that describes a problem, create a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, draw conclusions and refine the hypothesis. logicality in three aspects of logic, to achieve strict deduction and unity of requirements; On dialectical analysis and comprehensive method; In the system, the consistency of logic and history, to achieve the unity of theory and practice of concrete history.

2. Both sciences use the same scientific model to obtain information. Some branches of each science even use elements of both the natural and social sciences. Examples of natural sciences include biology and ecology, while economics and psychology are examples of social sciences.

3. Sociology as a science is a study of the natural process by which personality is formed and cultural continuity maintained. Biology is a study of the organic process by which individuals are produced and species continuity maintained. Sociologists can talk and directly asks questions from
the objects of their research, something that biologists and chemists would not be able to do.

Sociology accepts the individual as a datum; biology is not interested in, and cannot talk sense about, anything except the individual. Many problems of concrete reality involve elements of both processes. In such a case, either process may be abstracted for purposes of scientific study. Either process may give rise to problems in the other field.

4. Social scientists need to understand other people's ideas, but they can't get enough understanding just by observing the occurrence of simple events in real life. It's difficult to try to enter other people's brains to study other people's thoughts.

# data[].attributes.body
1. positivism
It is the principle that science (including social science) should be concerned only with observable entitles that are known directly to experience

Generating knowledge should be based on evidence drawn from observation, comparison, and experimentation.

Explain the relationships between observed phenomena.

By discovering causal relationships between events, scientists can then predict how future events will occur.

So for Comte, as a part of his positivist philosophy, it was crucial to use scientific evidence to explain and predict human behavior.

2) Yes
Even if Comte was right and humans could be scientifically studied, their behavior forecast and interventions were made to direct society in positive directions.

The goal of positivism, like the natural sciences, is prediction. But in the case of sociology, positivism’s goal is the prediction of human behavior, which is a complicated proposition.

But could such reliable, predictive knowledge ever be achieved in relation to societies and human behavior? Most sociologists today think it cannot, and few would use the term 'positivist' to describe their work. Most sociologists reject Comtean positivism because they view the idea of shaping and controlling people and societies as either impossible or potentially dangerous Of indeed, both. Self-conscious human beings cannot be studied in the same way as, say, frogs, because they are capable of acting in ways that confound our predictions about them.

# data[].attributes.body
What is Positivism in social science research?

The principle that social sciences, similar to natural sciences should only be concerned with observable entities that are related to experience.

He wanted to obtain observable information about human behaviour in order to make predictions which would help build the society in progressive ways.

Are we able to achieve  reliable, predictive knowledge  while studying  human societies and human behaviour?

No, due to the fact many sociologists disregarded this and considered it dangerous and impossible.

Even if his concept was correct, who would have the responsibility to shift society in a ‘positive direction’?

# data[].attributes.body
1. What is positivism :

It is based on the principle of Direct observation

It has theoretical statements aimed at  establishing law-like casual generalizations

It has an objective to gain reliable knowledge of the social world to predict the world and people reliably from gained information

2. Are we able to achieve predictive knowledge while studying human societies and human behaviors?

We think it's more likely than not it can predict patterns, as the saying says "History often repeats itself"

Hitler and Napoleon invading Russia in the winter,  the American and French revolutions and so on.

But it isn't likely that we would be able to predict what a specific person would do whilst caught in these patterns. Nobody expected Benedict Arnold to betray the Americans during their war for independence.

All humans are unique and their personality, their sense of moral, values are not the same. As a comic book's character once said "The values of a child who knows not of peace and the values of a child who knows not of war are completely different".

Our culture, upbringing and even greed could lead us to make unpredictable  decisions one would usually not make under regular circumstances.

Therefore we believe that we can somewhat accurately predict patterns of how a society/organisation would react and take action, but not the individual being themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
1) Positivism

-based on the direct observation

-aimed to establish casual, law-like generalisation

-achievement of natural science to produce reliable knowledge

2) No
the idea of shaping and controlling people and societies is either impossible or potentially dangerous

human are self-conscious cannot be study in the same way , like who decided the positive direction

the environment ,education , region or even the culture will affect  the human behaviour .