There is an on-going debate within the philosophy of social science, regarding the relationship between the natural and social sciences. This discussion stems from opposing viewpoints as to how studies of the world around us should be conducted. The job of science is to explain and make predictions regarding our realties, and researchers in the natural and social sciences have distinct views regarding that method. The natural sciences are focused on the causal nature of phenomena and they believe that the best way to discover these causes is through quantitative, analytical and impartial studies. The belief is that this brings them as close to the "reality of truth" as possible within an experimental environment. Social science theory on the other hand, deems the natural sciences as clinical and dismissive of meaningful explanations. Societal studies should involve reflective interpretations. It is apparent that all social researchers agree that the social sciences should be studied; Disagreement occurs regarding the methods chosen to study it. The United Nations is an entity that was created because all of its members agreed on the attainment of world peace and harmony. Problems have arisen regarding the pathways to achieve those goals, since every country has defined its own beliefs regarding policies and procedures. Likewise the social sciences face similar challenges from the differences in the use of language in studies, and how the resulting conclusions are communicated to others. Many scholars in the natural sciences believe that the social sciences are methodically similar. But can social science fit into a naturalist attitude? Can natural methods really benefit social sciences? Can there be a unity of science? How can hard" empiricism work for the study o ...