The first issue is that what is meant by the science of man upon which other sciences depend. There are two points to consider: (1) The science of man is different from self knowledge as heldby Socrates and existentialists, and (2) which facets of the mankind is his reality?
Proofs for the existence of each of the facets, e.g. soul, body, mind, etc. constitutes a branch of our knowledg of the mankind, yet they do not sender a perfect cognition. To solve the problem, the basis of the discussion should be clarified.
The other issue is that the findings of the present four or five method in science of man are conflicting with one another. Each of which describes only a set features relevant to their limitations, hence one must not to only one of them and ignore the rest. Once the two issues solved, the concept of the dependence of other sciences upon the science of man (anthropology) is clear.
.
., .. (1997). The Concept and Scope of the Dependence of Sciences on The Science of Man. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(9), 75-76.
MLA
. .. "The Concept and Scope of the Dependence of Sciences on The Science of Man". Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2, 9, 1997, 75-76.
HARVARD
., .. (1997). 'The Concept and Scope of the Dependence of Sciences on The Science of Man', Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(9), pp. 75-76.
VANCOUVER
., .. The Concept and Scope of the Dependence of Sciences on The Science of Man. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 1997; 2(9): 75-76.
)