Normative science

The goal of normative science is the universal answer normative questions.

Normative questions are questions of what should be, in particular, as will be traded and what values ​​and goals should be sought. Normative questions were, inter alia, in ethics, politics, economics, law and pedagogy.

Normative science is not to be confused with the empirical study of standards by sociology, anthropology or psychology. While it goes these sciences to the description and explanation systems of norms, normative science is striving for the justification and criticism of individual standards or entire systems of norms.

Science differs from other ways of acquiring knowledge by the fact that their results are not only of general application is claimed, but that is justified this claim by intersubjectively comprehensible arguments.

So claims the art of astrology as astrology for their statements even a general, ie independent of the subject and lasting validity, but the lack of astrology in contrast to scientific astronomy at the intersubjectively verifiable justification of their statements.

The intersubjective verifiability is based on the positive sciences on the basic repeatability (eg by an experiment ) on the basis of what is given sensual. That is why it is also called empirical sciences or empirical sciences.

If a normative science possible?

Normative questions can, however, only with the methods of the empirical sciences (systematic observation, experiment, etc.) do not answer. Because you can see though, what is, but you can not see what is to be.

Already Hume has pointed out that one can not logically deduce solely from statements about what is, what ought to be. Each circuit from being on an ought is therefore a logical fallacy because the ought is an entirely new element of meaning, which is not included in the factual assumptions and, consequently, can not be derived logically.

In the so-called value-judgment dispute at the beginning of the 20th century, the positivists have largely prevailed, demanding a purely empirical, value -judgmental science.

On the other hand, remained the normative questions about doing the right thing, after to be aimed at the good, the public good and justice more acute. The extreme position that normative questions are pointless, since as proved unhelpful.

In the 60s of the 20th century voices that pointed out that normative propositions of logic are accessible and you can intersubjectively comprehensible argue for or against normative assertions were increasing.

The truth criterion of the empirical sciences, logical consistency and matching observation, though whether on normative claims are not applicable, but again do not rule the existence of other criteria of universality from.

Especially Habermas a consensus theory of truth, was introduced into the discussion in this context. After that is a criterion for the general validity of a claim that a general consensus can be produced via this assertion in an ideal speech situation without force and only about arguments.

As Habermas deliberately wanted to develop any methodology to answer normative questions, however, he remained true to his critics, the answer to the question of guilt, what -giving in the normative sciences, the role of consensus, could take on intersubjectively matching observation.

Thus, the possibility of normative science remains controversial.