Natural contra human sciences: the conflict between nomothetic and idiographic sciences, with special reference to S. J. Boëthius

This article tackles issues central to most academic disciplines, including scientific boundary demarcation, the battle of the faculties, the theory of science, and the conflict between nomothetic and idiographic methodologies, that is, between the two main approaches to science. It does so through discovering and rethinking a Methodenstreit in Swedish political science, an academic dispute involving Professor Rudolf Kjell & eacute;n, the father of geopolitics, and his greatest rival, Professor S. J. Bo & euml;thius. Shortly after retiring from the Johan Skytte Professorship at Uppsala University, S. J. Bo & euml;thius published a great but inaccessible work on state theory and its history entitled Om statslivet (On the life of the state, 1916). The book critiques the positivistic and nomothetic (law-searching) approaches of the burgeoning social sciences, which were emancipating themselves from their father, history, and becoming independent disciplines. Bo & euml;thius critiqued the nomothetic studies of history, economics, statistics, sociology, and geopolitics for overemphasizing the significance of historical, economic, statistical, sociological, and geographical environments and structures. Thus, the exponents of these new or changing disciplines were criticized for neglecting the most important driving force of human affairs in Bo & euml;thius's mind, namely, the power of personality and individual free will.