Conclusion: Positive philosophy must rationally classify the positive sciences in a way that truly naturally represents them and their connections by studying them directly.
"We must now determine . . . that which is the most suitable rational classification of the different fundamental positive sciences" (35)
"The classification must proceed from a direct study of the objects to be clasified, and must be determined by the real affinities and natural connections that they present" (37)
Premises:
In order to study and classify the sciences, they must be homogeneously positive (36)
There is a satisfactory level of homogeneity in the sciences to properly classify them (37)
We cannot use any criteria stemming from faculties of the mind and understanding (36)
They are all constantly at work anyway and therefore play no part in differentiation (36)
All positive sciences can be broken down into two fundamental pieces: theory and application (38)
We need only look to theory to classify the positive sciences (38)
Theory lays the groundwork, course of action, and is even the cause of any practical scientific application (38)
The theory behind a science is conceived before the methodology (40)
We need only look at the theories behind different sciences to properly classify them (42)
In Comte classification of the sciences and based on the second premise of the argument presented above, I can feel the point that Comte is laying on the facts that all positive sciences in general are basically a result of two main and essential focuses of presented theories like for example for the assignments we get as students in the laboratory class for scientific subjects to experiment certain theories and therefore study them and break them down into little facts for a clearer understanding in a manner of supporting the theory by the application where the theory is applied to prove the fact which in Comte view of point what he calls " The Positive Science"
ReplyDeleteThe question I m thinking of now is; why does Comte call this positive science? What point factor makes it positive ? Is it because the application serves and proves the theory ? But what if the application doesn't prove the theory, is it still then a positive science? Maybe for proving the point of right application for theory or wrong application for theory which then would make the theory and application rest to prove the scientific argument to be clear and positively correct or not.