孟子說：魚與熊掌不可兼得。當某人選擇了熊掌而捨棄魚時，社會科學家便會開始好奇一個人選擇熊掌的理由。因為，對於社會科學主義者而言，社會科學的目的在於，如何藉由建立一套客觀的理論法則，將人的行為，根據可操控的因果關係來加以解釋並預測。找魚，乃是相對於熊掌而來。本篇文章旨在說明，在魚與掌可兼得情況下，熊掌作為一項選擇的前提，是魚必須也同時為一個真實的選擇，故社會科學的目的不只是解釋熊掌被選擇的理由，還要去找尋熊掌以外的可能性，發掘讓熊掌之所以成為一種選擇的魚是什麼。本文進一步指出，社會科學主義者追求對於人類行為的普遍性解釋，會構成一套封閉性的理論系統，為人類社的的生活帶來某種暴力性。因此，如何藉由「找魚」，打開原本封閉的解釋系統，指出任何行為選擇均不且備必然性，以及思考做為其他選項的「魚」，存在於未來的各種可能發展型態，是本文論證的重點。

　　　　　Contrary to the mainstream epistemology of social science, this paper argues that the mission of social science is more than explaining. It treats behavior as product of both situation and mind that is always undecidable until it happens. Accordingly, the mission of social science is to discover those other behavioral possibilities that could have occurred but did not. These possibilities are often explained away in theory-driven research, as if external, objective structures close them off. As a result, the actors under study are left without responsibility, to the extent that anyone in the same shoes would act in the same way. This paper borrows Mencius's analogy of himself deciding between a fish and bear's paws and eventually favoring the paws. The paper contends that Mencius did not really favor the paws. Based on this assumption, it is epistemologically imperative to discover the fish, which disappeared in Mencius's decision. It is the fish that made Mencius's choice of the paws a genuine choice, and Mencius, a real person.