Positivist vs. Naturalistic Science

Paper Summary:

The goal of positivistic science is prediction of how the natural world operates. An opposing paradigm of science is the approach taken by Henry Thoreau and John Muir. The paper shows that in naturalistic science, those analyzing the natural world make no distinction between thoughts and values. They are much more concerned with the "why" of nature as opposed to the "how" aspect of positivistic science. The paper shows that, as a result, naturalistic science is completely value laden and each individual naturalist scientist encompasses his own world views into his description of how the natural world operates.

From the Paper:

"For naturalists, the only true way to obtain a taste of nature is to actually live with nature and not separate oneself from its workings. This quote emphasizes how values are an important facet in doing this; by removing oneself from natural surroundings, i.e. moving to the city, one loses the actual relationship that exists between humanity and nature. Humans must be involved in the whole process of nature in order to enjoy it fully. For Thoreau, general truths or the laws concerning nature are also relevant to human truths."

More papers on Positivist vs. Naturalistic Science:

• Essay # 84868 : "Positivist Criminology"
• Analytical Essay # 130400 : "Classical and Positivist Criminology"
• Essay # 32258 : "Science vs Astrology"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: