ABSTRACT
IT is often asserted that the social sciences have not established any genuine laws. But this assertion can be taken in two quite different ways. It may be understood as claiming that the universal hypotheses put forward have not been well tested. Clearly, it is only the social scientists who can decide whether this is so. For the critics’ competence to do this is open to serious doubt, since the answer to the question ‘What constitutes being well tested in this particular case?’ does not depend merely on logical and methodological requirements common to all the sciences. The answer depends also on the body of knowledge that is relevant to the particular problem; and there is every reason for supposing that the social scientist has a better command of this body of knowledge than have his critics.
