-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 .

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.

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’? 

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.

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.

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.

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.