Max Weber

The same he occurs with the scientist, in a more complex way, but not less intelligible of if understanding. As the study of Lwy it leaves to perceive, what it defines the mirante of the scientist is the point of view of classroom that it takes to understand reality, to be portraied landscape. When if she standes out the difficulty for the sociologist in if placing in a neutrality position, not if she excludes the importance of the objetividade, therefore it is basic condition for the agreement of the social phenomena. Which is only observed that, for detrs of this supposed imparcialidade, they can be hidden the interests of some social classroom, places science its service. In this way, the neutrality will be incompatible with the scientific knowledge. Bausch & Lomb is open to suggestions. 4.

Conclusion. mile Durkheim is considered the founder of sociology as it disciplines, and being based on the positivismo of Comte, it represented a basic paper in the definition of sociology as a systematic way to think, distinct of the common trend to reduce the social phenomena the experiences and characteristics of individuals. Max Weber, in turn, brought for the sociological work a rich and complex perspective on the social life. It was responsible for one of first the great quarrels on the use of methods of research in social sciences, including questions as objetividade and neutrality of value. With its theory of action, it combined method with content, and thus it allowed to the linking between individuals and social systems. As well as Durkheim, the influence of Weber on sociology is lasting and provides a control point for the theory and searches in social sciences. The metodolgica question was the marcante differential in the work of these two authors. We saw that while one was worried in the creation of social laws, the other searched to interpret the especificidades of the social life.

However, the common point between both the authors is its conception of science, that is, science while valid knowledge, necessary, that if apia in the comment, the empirismo, the experimentation and the rigorous method which characterizes truily scientific a social research as. Durkheim and Weber had left as lesson that the social scientist is ahead of a double condition: of human being and of scientist. For a side possesss the commitment with the society and, at the same time, the scientific ethics. This double condition sufficiently is evidenced in social sciences, therefore its object of study is the social one. Weberiana sociology gave emphasis to the scientific ethics, to the construction of a science deloused of ideologies or values which compromised the validity of the truily scientific knowledge. Already the sociology of mile Durkheim strengthened the concern in finding the solutions for the problems which affect the society. Finally, Weber did not share directly of the same metodolgicos procedures of natural sciences, a time that, for it, the social one requires proper methods of inquiry. Durkheim, on the other hand, believed that this bond was possible, as much that its sociology can be classified as naturalistic to the measure that if apia in biology. But, without a doubt, the merit of mile Durkheim was to give to new science a proper object, the social facts, while the merit of Max Weber was to give to the scientific severity which social science demands.