Abstract

Physics has for a long time been regarded as the most mature of all sciences due to strict mathematically formulated laws of physics and success of theories in applications, for which it has been taken as the example of scientificity which other sciences should strive towards. Just what aspect of physics it is that is regarded as the cause of its success and hence the yardstick of scientificity – this question has given rise to differing opinions. In his book Making Social Sciences More Scientific. The Need For Predictive Models Rein Taagepera criticises the opinion that physics is a rigorous science ‘merely’ due to the use of mathematical operations and numerical accuracy of results. He shows that the strictness of physics consists instead in its method that allows to set numbers and mathematical formalism into correspondence with real phenomena in a way that enables application (first of all prediction), and to unite physical theories into uniform, integral systems. At the same time he teaches how it would be possible to reach the same in social sciences. In the first part of my review I will give an overview of the book’s chapters, describing in more detail Taagepera’s general understanding of science and scientific method. In the second part of the review I analyse the positions presented in the book from the point of view of philosophy of science (particularly that of constructive realism), providing examples from social sciences. With my critique I show that the society cannot be handled with strict theories similar to those of physics, and that in order to raise the applicational strength of social sciences, other means often suit better than rendering them similar to physics by developing mathematical formalism.