In natural sciences, it is possible in a laboratory experiment to use the controls effectively. Social scientist cannot order events to happen in a particular way to study to situation; i.e. the scope of experiment is very-very limited. According to Durkheim, even without a laboratory, social facts can be so arranged as if that had been done in an experiment.  In his study of suicide while comparing, economic differences were not allowed to come in the way of studying the relationship of religion with suicide. Therefore Durkheim calls for such use of comparative method as an indirect experiment.

Now we have used three sets of words

 comparisons;  comparative method;  indirect experiment.

As we more form an account of comparisons to explanations of events, we move to the second position.

Can an experiment be done by taking up one case only? One experiment conducted in a satisfactory manner can be decisive under certain conditions. Suppose we take the view that social objects were simple in the beginning, and have become more complex with the passage of time. Then the true form of the thing was in the beginning. If we can find an example of a social institution in its simplest and purest form we can understand the ‘essence’ of that institution. Thus Durkheim studied the social institution of religion among the Australian tribes and traced the essential characteristics of religion in their existing practices. In such cases, the single study acquires an experimental character. It clarifies that ‘essentials’ without bothering about dilutions. In India, the followers of the Army Samaj act on the same principle considering the Vedic religion as pure, and later growth as an admixture of the wrong practices added on to it.