Social Sciences deal with more abstract aspects of the world while natural science is easily measured and is more observable than social sciences. Social sciences include psychology, law, politics, sociology etc.. and natural sciences are chemistry, Biology, physics etc.... But one is not necessarily easier than the other, just different.
On a weaker reading, it would be that there are some natural sciences that make more exact predictions than any social sciences on any of these dimensions.
Firstly, political science is not a natural science, so it bears a weaker relationship than other natural sciences. Political science draws on some of the methods (e.g.) mathematics and statistics) and philosophies (e.g.) positivism) from the natural sciences but, for the most part, relies on its own counterparts.
Political science has to do with politics, other science has to do with... well... science. No real connections though. Political science has to do with politics, other science has to do with... well... science. No real connections though.
No, they are weaker.
A position supported by social Darwinism is the idea that competition and natural selection should be allowed to determine success and social hierarchy in society. This theory suggests that those who are the fittest and most successful will rise to the top, while those who are weaker will be left behind.
weaker (generally speaking) Try two parallel plates...
Imperial states exert economic control over weaker states to exploit their Natural Resources.
Because thy are considered to be a weaker gener
Social Darwinism:)
Yes, Social Darwinist ideas were used to justify policies of imperial expansion by suggesting that it was natural for stronger nations to dominate weaker ones. This concept was applied to justify the acquisition of resources and territories through military conquest.
Because thy are considered to be a weaker gener
social darwinism