There were other reasons for the unsatisfactory status of the social sciences, for which social scientists appeared to be responsible. The first was the frequent failure of social scientists to be scientific-in method in particular, their neglect of observation of facts as the basis of theories and as the control of theories.
Economics and other social sciences, were still excessively occupied with giment from "the positions of philosophers," though they professed to deal with phenomena The second reason was the failure of some economists and political scientists to be scientific, in detachment from partisan action and in avoidance of giving judgment continually on controversial practical issues, The business of the social scientist was to study and compare different types of economic, political and social organization, as the biologist studied forms of life or the chemist compared the réactfons of different materials under various conditions, The service of. social science and the practice of the arts of democratic government were vocations each of which might be pursued with sincer ty ahd singleness of purpose, but they could not be combined.
The place of the social iences in human knowledge was that of the last-born of the sciences of observation, their affinities were here rather than with mathematics or philosophy As last-born they were in Their complexity and the lack of precise information made them slow of growth.
Modesty about the pr ut achievements of social science should involve no discouragement, nor should there be modesty in our ambitions. Without better understanding by man of his own nature and that of human society civilization was in danger. For the good of mankind the social sciences had still to win for themselves laboriously the red ion and assured place of influence already won by the natural sciences. The two keys that could unlock for them the gatew of their promised land were observation and detachment
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.