this comparison havent asked in any CSS papers yet but can be asked !!!



A basic aspect of the methodological approach of Comte and Ibn Khaldun is their discussion of the nature of truth. In what aspect do they follow a similar route in forwarding the legitimacy of their truth claims?

Both focus on scientific method as being different from everyday perception:

If it is true that every theory must be based on observed facts, it is equally true that facts cannot be observed without the guidance of some theory. Without such guidance, our facts would be desultory and fruitless

If this is so, the normative method for distinguishing right from wrong in historical information on the grounds of (inherent) possibility or absurdity, is to investigate human social organization, which is identical with civilization. We must distinguish the conditions that attach themselves to the essence of civilization as required by its very nature; the things that are accidental (to civilization) and cannot be counted on; and the things that cannot possibly attach themselves to it.

Perception has to be guided by theory to establish scientific facts in a legitimate manner. In this way, both authors claim a specific and superior epistemology; they regard everyday experience as prone to illusion, misinterpretations and deception.



Notwithstanding this similarity in creating superior truth claims for science,there is a central difference between their conceptions of science. Ibn Khaldun emphasizes discontinuities and repetitions in social processes. Berber tribes rise to might and power, raze cities, settle down, go through a transformation from a state of high internal cohesion and a strong sense of asabiyah to a state of internal conflict and decadence and finally get overthrown by a new and strong tribe. For Ibn Khaldun, this typical development can be disrupted by special events like wars with rival dynasties and it is also influenced by environmental conditions like climate. He also highlights the possible dangers that lie in drawing conclusions from contemporary social facts and accordingly he stresses the importance of social change.

Comte, to the contrary, lays his emphasis on the concept of progress. He constructs a linear advancement of knowledge: Knowledge is going through theological and metaphysical phases until the condition of positive philosophy is eventually reached. Once this state is achieved, it is irreversible, only further quantitative additions to human knowledge can be made, not a qualitative change. I would interpret this central difference between Ibn Khaldun and Comte as a case that displays the difference between a typical example of European (and eurocentristic) concepts of progress, rationalization and modernity and non-European concepts of society or social change. For that reason it 'preshadows' claims later made by feminist and postmodern critiques and thereby enriches the syllabus: Discussion in class or in an exam could focus, for example, on the question why a theory like Ibn Khaldun's had to be 'discovered' by social scientists and historians in the 19th century and how these discoverers interpreted Ibn Khaldun's work.

__________________
The kingdom of the heavens and the earth belongs to Allah. He indeed is able to do all things. -Quran, Al-Imran, Surah 3:189

Somayya