|WikiProject Sociology||(Rated NA-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Anthropology||(Rated NA-class, High-importance)|
Agreed, in sociology, positivism is seens as branch of philosophical thought and there is no difference between its relevance across the fields of study. (Unsigned comment by LiamTolan)
Surely its a moot point, social positivism is merely the occurance of positivism in sociology, where as positivism is evident in many academic fields (Unsigned comment by 126.96.36.199)
If a merger occurs, it should of course be done not in the proposed direction but in the opposite direction: Sociological positivism should be incorporated as a sub-subject of the general page Positivism (Philosophy).
But if it is true, as the current page states, that "Positivism also involves a belief in the social progress which would be necessarily be brought by scientific progress", then I would argue against merging. Positivism as discussed in the Positivism (Philosophy) article is a philosophy of knowledge and science, and would absolutely not deal with value judgements about "social progress" or make unverifiable statements about such progress "necessarily" being brought by scientific advances. A positivist (in the philosophical sense) would dismiss such statements as unfalsifiable, and therefore meaningless. Instead of merging I would suggest cleaning out the general Positivism material from this article and leaving only the uniquely sociological aspects. Mglg 01:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Positivism is the primary article, sociological positivism is a branch of that philosophy. A sociologist did create this perspective within philosophy, however it is applied in a variety of different fields, such as geography; therefore, I feel that we should merge this article into positivism, not the other way around. Should geographical positivism become a branch of sociological positivism in wikipedia? SCmurky 23:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
the merge is removed because there was no action and the discussion did not have consensus.--Buridan 02:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Principles - induction v deduction.
I would've thought that Positivism is actually deductive - moving from abstract theories to hypotheses which are then confirmed or disconfirmed by the evidence - Jameses —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
Quality must be improved!
It's amazing such an important sociology article has slipped through the net. Generally (and I don't mean in this article per se) the sense of criticism against positivism is too strong - one must remember that positivism is alive and kicking in the billion dollars of research that businesses and governments spend on numerical data, and that Durkheim was actually a very liberal and reasonable thinker in his time, not such a grand, nefarious, humanist schemer. Only by comparison with Marx was he a conservative. (You might want to read the book by Jonathan Fish, 'Defending the Durkheimian tradition'. Anyway, yes, this article needs a hell of a lot of work. --Tomsega (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)