Taking a closer look at a thorough comparison made by the author of the article between the factors able to highlight the difference between the two fields of knowledge, we may clear up that there exist at least three conclusive advantages of the natural sciences as compared to the social sciences, videlicet, inalterability of observations, possibility to check the hypothesis, and constancy of numerical relationships. However, the way the creator of this paper sees it, these advantages are just mere benefits that the natural sciences posses and these advantage point does not mean that the natural sciences are in some way superior to the social ones. On the second thought, the creator of this article is just assured that there exists no reason of comparison between the two sciences in question. This is just because one science is not an alternate of the other one of two. The social sciences are no way an alternate of the natural ones, where we can easily choose one over the other one. Instead, the two fields of knowledge go together to make the composite we are living in understandable to the society. If one of these sciences disappears an individual person may find himself confused and embarrassed. The statements presented in the article no way imply that we should not study any social sciences at all because they are in some way inferior to the natural ones. The advantage point of the natural sciences exists but a benefit that can be reached by this single body of knowledge is more significant. So , the imaginary inferiority of the social sciences as compared to the natural sciences is nothing but a phantom that the society add to the former, seeing the later as indeed superior.