ABSTRACT
The philosophers differ on the question whether explanations in social sciences are of the same nature as those used in the natural sciences or they are completely different. Hobbes, Comte, Mill, Hempel, Nagel and several others side with the former, emphasising the methodological unity of the natural and the social sciences, while thinkers like Dilthey, Dray, Winch, Taylor etc. with equal vigour side with the latter, emphasising the methodological disunity between them. The first kind of approach as adopted by Mill, Hempel etc. is known as the naturalistic approach, while, in contrast, the second as adopted by Dray, Winch etc. is known as the anti-naturalistic approach. Hobbes, Comte etc. are of the view that all social sciences can be reduced to psychology and then to physiology and then to physics. Hence any separate laws or principles are not required to explain human phenomena. They are all basically to be explained and understood in terms of the mechanical laws working in nature. In contrast, Winch takes human behavior as rule-governed rather than being law-governed; therefore, human behavior cannot be compared with the regularity found in the occurrence of the natural events. Human action is meaningful because it is performed for a reason.
