The social sciences are, and long have been, a source of the law.
The processes involved are unlike those of the sciences that study things or animals. Many of the same qualities that separate the different sciences lie behind the differences in processes.
The most important of these scientific differences stem from their subjects and, secondarily, their methods. The roles of technology, indeed its definition, are special for each kind of science.Social science studies human interactions. The other sciences study things or animals. For these sciences, the ultimate test of truth comes from the technology which is developed from the knowledge the science provides. If the knowledge can be shown to work, it is judged to be correct. If the knowledge does not survive empirical verification, something about it is thought to be lacking. The case is very different for the study of mankind. There is no ultimate test of truth. The time, the place, the circumstances and, above all, man’s free will determine the outcome of events. Knowledge that stands up to empirical verification in one situation does not do so in another.
Social scientific knowledge is contingent in ways that the knowledge of things is not. Even cultural universals, such as music and exchange, change with time and are socially conditioned. Few social science generalizations are verifiable for all times and all cultures. Those that are universally true, such as ‘all men die’, are attributes more of the physical body rather than of behaviour. This does not deny the possibility, indeed, the necessity for the scientific study of men. The necessity stems from the fact that men, having free will, seek order and change. They have ideals and try to live by them. They try to improve and believe improvement is possible. What is more natural than to apply methods that are known to produce verifiable knowledge in the pursuit of these aims?
The kind of technology that is developed in the social sciences is a set of instructions for doing things.
Although these instructions can be written down, they are not embodied in material things in the same way as is the knowledge developed by the other sciences. Often, the results of this kind of technology are embodied in techniques, social organizations and other linguistic and analytical tools. The development of computers provides a dramatic example of both kinds of technology. The physical parts reflect the translation of scientific theory into a workable tool. But they would not work without programs - the detailed list of instructions which manage the electrical changes. These are the written reflection of ideas or techniques. They are the embodiment of ideas.Popular expressions such as ‘the knowledge revolution’ refer to this kind of technology. Knowledge is embodied in techniques ranging from bowing for stringed instruments and tonguing for wind instruments to organization manuals for business and government, data bases, drug formulas, computer programs and much else often referred to as ‘intellectual capital’. This kind of technology provides for the combination of limited resources in ways that produce ever more value.