Is Sociology A Science Flashcards
Positivists
• Early sociologists like Comte and Durkheim argued sociology should strive to be a science.
• This is because the 19th century saw the rise of science as a way of explaining things e.g. huge advances in medicine and Darwin’s theory of evolution.
• Comte claimed science only concerned itself with observable phenomena but Durkheim moved away from this. That makes some argue he wasn’t truly scientific
• Some cynics argue the early sociologists wanted to make their new subject respectable and accepted in universities so they called it the science of society
• A less cynical view is that Comte and Durkheim thought if they could understand the scientific workings of society they could improve it in the way doctors could make sick people better.
Supporting evaluation
Marxism.
To some extent, Marx’s work can also be seen to follow a scientific tradition. worked all his life to show that there were laws of economics that would eventually lead to a Communist society and a revolution
Kaplan
Kaplan takes a slightly different slant on the argument and argues that sociology is as scientific or as unscientific as the natural sciences. He argues there are times when the natural sciences are not perhaps as scientific as they should be. He points to examples of scientists ignoring data that does not fit,manipulating their data to fit their hypothesis and the fact that some scientific breakthroughs have just been down to luck (penicillin).
Kaplan refers to the difference between:
• Reconstructed logic: the methods scientists claim to use
• Logics in use: the actual methods they use
• Very little scientific research is checked so much of it contains personal bias. So why, if Kaplan is arguing that science is not scientific is he on the side that argues that sociology is? It comes down to the idea that if the natural science can be accepted as ‘science’ when at time they lack the requirements of a science then surely sociology can be seen as a science too.
Realism
Realist such as Bhaskar (‘79) and Sayer (‘92) believe that it is possible and desirable for sociology to be seen as scientific. They see the social sciences and the natural sciences as similar. They point out that some sciences have closed systems where all the variables can be measured i.e. physics, biology etc. Others operate in more open systems where it is difficult to measure all the variables and precise predictions cannot be made i.e. seismology (volcanoes), meteorology (weather) etc. They believe that sociology is scientific but that we have to accept that societies are open complex systems making it impossible to make precise predictions. Therefore it could be scientific due to its open nature
Interpretivists
They believe that the subject matter of sociology differs fundamentally to that of the natural sciences and that people cannot be studied in a controlled way. Individual are not passive recipients of external forces. Meanings and motives must be taken into account when studying the actions of individuals in order to gain a valid view. Interpretivists would not strive to be scientific and believe that you get a much better understanding of people if you approach your studies subjectively
Popper
Much of the debate about sociology being a science or not is based on a
• particular view of what science is (see previous)
Philosophers such as Popper suggest testing hypotheses can never prove something to be true.
Instead the aim should be to prove any hypothesis false the principle of falsification
As long as it is not proved false it can be accepted as true. (SWANS)
However Popper claims most sociology does not produce testable hypotheses so cannot be seen as a science
Kuhn
Kuhn argues that the natural science themselves are not scientific as they do not involve a cumulative process (build on existing theory and take us forward in our knowledge). Kuhn believes that science operates within paradigms (an accepted body of knowledge) and that this then dominates scientific thinking and traps thought and investigations within it. It is only through scientific revolution that a paradigm shifts.
Normal scientific thought
(this old paradigm might be ‘the world is flat’)
A few scientists may step out of this paradigm (they say the world is round but they will largely be ignored)
Evidence build up to support the new paradigm (more scientists come over to this point of view)
So, it is a revolution that causes the change not an accumulation of knowledge. Kuhn believes that if science doesn’t fit the criteria of what it is supposed to then sociology cannot be seen as scientific.
