Machlup’s essay is a methodological reflection on what truly distinguishes the social sciences from the natural sciences. He rejects both extremes: the claim that the two domains require wholly different logics of inquiry, and the claim that no significant methodological difference exists. His central point is narrower and sharper: social scientists study beings who speak, interpret, theorize, deny, and explain themselves.
The differences between the natural and the social sciences have been both exaggerated and minimized.
The essay develops this claim through a parable in which molecules suddenly begin talking to physicists. They offer accounts of their own behavior, dispute scientific explanations, and become not merely objects observed from outside but sources of testimony. The fantasy clarifies the social scientist’s ordinary situation: human subjects do not merely behave; they also produce meanings, stories, excuses, and theories that must themselves be interpreted.
It is one of the characteristics of the natural sciences that their subjects of investigation do not talk about themselves.
Machlup uses this contrast to refine the idea of Verstehen. Understanding is not a mystical alternative to explanation, nor simply introspection by analogy. It is a disciplined effort to construct models of actors’ purposes, perceptions, memories, and beliefs while also treating actors’ own statements as data. Such statements may illuminate conduct, but they may also mislead, rationalize, or contradict observable patterns. The social scientist must therefore neither ignore them nor accept them at face value.
Economics is Machlup’s principal example. Bankers, businessmen, investors, and consumers often misunderstand the larger processes in which they participate. Their testimony is indispensable for some purposes, but economic theory cannot be reduced to interviews or surface observation. It requires abstract models, ideal types, and assumptions about purposeful conduct.
Alas, economics cannot be learned either by watching or by interviewing the people engaged in economic activities.
Machlup’s defense of theoretical abstraction is therefore not a dismissal of human meaning. Rather, he argues that economics must explain action through constructs such as preference, expectation, choice, and profit-seeking, while remembering that these constructs are analytical tools rather than literal psychological portraits. The profit motive, for instance, is needed to explain market competition even if individual actors describe their motives differently.
The later sections broaden the argument to the relation between theory and history. Machlup resists the old division between generalizing natural sciences and individualizing cultural sciences. Social science, like natural science, contains general propositions; history uses such propositions to explain particular sequences of events. Applications always draw on multiple disciplines and levels of analysis.
No discipline is self-sufficient when it comes to applications.
The essay’s significance lies in its balanced position. Machlup does not give the social sciences a separate logic, but he insists that their objects are uniquely troublesome because they are speaking, interpreting, theory-bearing agents. If matter could talk, physicists would confront the same kind of evidence social scientists handle daily: testimony that is meaningful, useful, and problematic all at once.
This work was divided into 8 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 8 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian