 Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. In previous sections we have discussed contentment, gratitude and trust as the behavioral foundations for an Islamic approach to economics. This is obviously very different from the conventional approach and this raises many methodological questions which we will address in this part D. So can we use normative ideals as a basis for the study of human society? Isn't it true that science should describe objective reality, not normative ideals which are just in our heads? And the behaviors we discussed are not even found among most Muslims, let alone the majority of humanity. So how can these be applied to the study of the real world? All of these objections arise from a certain view of science which is now dominant. And this can be called sinitism which is an exaggerated trust in the efficiency of scientific methods as applied to realms of other realms of knowledge. Sinitism can be characterized by the following four assumptions that science is the only valid source of knowledge and science describes empirical reality. And also we can study human society by the scientific method. And also that we understand what the scientific method is and therefore we know how to apply it. All of these assumptions are wrong and we will briefly rebut each of them in turn. And understanding of what the scientific method is emerged in the early 20th century with the name of logical positivism. And this had a spectacular collapse around the middle of the 19th, middle of the 20th century. And so currently there is massive confusion about what is science. The standard model collapsed and nothing has emerged to replace it. And so today nobody knows exactly how to define science and scientific knowledge and how to differentiate it from the other kinds of knowledge that we have. The objection that the normative ideals don't belong to study of society emerges from a concept that science is the only valid source of knowledge. Because if there are other valid sources of knowledge, spiritual truths, then this objection would not arise. So the question is, is science the only valid source of knowledge? And the answer is obvious, it is not. We have our own personal experiences and these are not scientific because these are unique to us and not replicable. And so we obviously have access to a huge amount of other kinds of non-scientific knowledge. And these are the basis on which we live our lives. The idea that science is empirical, the rejection of religion led to what is called the deification of science. The belief that science is like religious knowledge, it can explain everything. And therefore science can also be applied to the study of human societies. But this is obviously wrong for many reasons. The simplest of which is that the particles that we study in physics don't have any free will and they don't have any ideals. And the essence of a human being is that the ability to choose between good and evil. And therefore there are no laws which describe our behavior. And we have normative goals which is to strive for the excellence. And we also have some bad characteristics and desire to do evil. And these are in struggle in our souls. And the message of the Quran teaches us about these characteristics of human behavior which are the basis of an Islamic approach to the social sciences. All of this confusion about science was created by the philosophy of logical positivism which had a spectacular emergence in the early 20th century and an equally spectacular crash in the later part of the 20th century. This philosophy was based on two misconceptions about science. That science is based only upon observations and logic. Whereas in fact science depends on hypothesis about the unobserved reality. And also that science is the only valid source of knowledge which is also false. There are many other sources of knowledge beyond science. Because this philosophy was enormously successful in the early 20th century all of the humanities were rebuilt and refounded on positivist ideas in the early 20th century. After the collapse of positivism it became necessary to rebuild these foundations because they had been proven flawed but this was never done. Economists continue to believe in the failed philosophical ideas of positivism and use them as the foundations for their subject. And more details are given in a couple of articles that I have written on this topic.