Sociology and Science Flashcards
Success of science made a powerful impression on…
Modernist sociologists such as Comte , Durkheim and Marx.
They sought to copy it success by producing a science of society. Just as the natural sciences enabled us to control nature sociology would bring true knowledge of society that could be used to eradicate problems such as poverty , injustice and conflict.
Positivists
- ‘Sociology’ was coined by Comte, a
positivist who believed we can apply the
logic/methods of natural sciences to
society. - This would give us objective knowledge to
help solve social problems.
- - Positivists favour macro/structural
explanations of society, like functionalism
and Marxism, as they see society/its
structures as social facts that shape our
behaviour patterns.
Positivists:Patterns Laws and inductive reasoning
- Positivists argue that reality is patterned, and we can observe these patterns- such as
water boils at 100 degrees. - They believe that as in natural sciences, sociologists should observe, identify and
measure patterns in society and then explain them: this is inductive reasoning- discovering laws that determine how society works.
Verificationism (Follow up from Positivists:Patterns Laws and inductive reasoning)
- After, we can develop a theory from our observations in order
to explain them. - Once further observations have confirmed/verified the theory,
we can claim to have discovered the truth or ‘law’. - This approach is called verificationism- inductive reasoning
claims to verify a theory. - Therefore, positivists can explain a social ‘fact’ in terms of
another. - This means positivists seek to find the causes of the patterns
they’ve found by producing statements about how society
works.
These can be used to predict future events and guide social policies,
such as policies to tackle material deprivation because we know it
causes educational failure.
Objective quantitative research (positivists)
Positivists believe sociologists should adopt the research process of natural scientists,
where a hypothesis is tested in a systematic and controlled way.
* This is why they use quantitative data to find and measure patterns of behaviour- it
allows them to produce mathematically precise statements on the relationship
between the facts they are investigating.
* Essentially, positivists use quantitative data to discover laws of cause-and-effect
relationships that determine behaviour.
* This means that researchers should be detached and objective in their process, not
allowing their own subjective values influence how they do their research/analyse
their findings.
* Because there’s the risk of contaminating data with subjectivity, positivists like very
detached methods like questionnaires, structured interviews and official statistics.
whilst scientists test the effecct of light on plants compared to a measuring effect of material deprivational achievement what variables may be difficult to control?
Unlike in a lab, sociologists cannot “control” a child’s home environment or assign them randomly to different levels of deprivation. This makes replication difficult and raises ethical concerns—e.g., you can’t deprive a child of resources just to observe outcomes.
Furthermore, subjectivity plays a larger role in sociological research. Data may come from interviews, observations, or questionnaires, which can be affected by researcher bias or misreporting by participants. This contrasts with the objective measurement often seen in natural sciences.
Positivism and suicide
Durkheim (1897) studied suicide to show that sociology was a
science with its own distinct subject matter.
* He believed that if he could prove an act as individual as
suicide had social causes, sociology could be established as a
scientific discipline.
* The study used quantitative data from official stats, where
Durkheim found patterns in the suicide rate like higher
Protestant rates than Catholics.
Catholics were less likely than protestants to commit suicide because catholicsm was more succesful in integrating indivdiauls.
* He concluded that the levels of integration and regulation
were the social facts responsible for this pattern.
Interpretivism
Interpretivists don’t believe sociology is
a science, nor should it try to be.
* They criticise positivism as being
inadequate for the study of human
beings.
Interpretivism and the subject matter of sociology
Interpretivists argue that the subject matter is meaningful social action, which can only be understood by
successfully interpreting the meanings/motives of actors involved.
* This means that sociology isn’t a science because it deal with human meanings, not laws of cause and effect-
Many interpetivists completely reject the use of natural science Natural science studies matter with no consciousness its reaction is due to ane xternal stimulus for instance an apple falls due to gravity ghowever sociology studies people who have consciousness and people make sense of and construct their world by attaching meanings to it.
our actions are based on interpreting to stimuli and the choosing how to respond, not an automatic reaction to stimuli.
* Interpretivists argue that we’re not puppets manipulated by social facts, but autonomous beings who construct the social world through the meanings we give to it.
Interpretivism:Versetehn and qualitative research
Interpretivists reject the logic/methods of natural
sciences, so therefore they reject quantitative
methods of study.
* They argue that we need to see the world from the
subject’s viewpoint to understand the meanings
they give their actions.
* This is why we must put ourselves in the other’s
shoes (verstehen) to understanding their
meanings- qualitative methods like unstructured
interviews, personal documents and participant
observations are best.
Interactionist :Type of Interpretivsm
Believe we can have casual explanations instead of the positivist
approach of a definite hypothesis before starting research.
* Instead, it’s a bottom-up approach of having ideas through the
research itself rather than a fixed hypothesis.
Phenomenologists & ethnomethologists::Types of Interpretivism
Completely reject the possibility of casual explanations of human
behaviour, and instead take the anti-structuralist approach that says
society isn’t a real thing that determines our actions.
* This view argues that social reality is simply the shared
meanings/knowledge of its members, that society only exists in the
consciousness of people.
* Therefore, the subject matter of sociology is the interpretative
procedures we use to make sense of the world, which can’t have the
cause-and-effect relationships with external forces that positivists
claim.
Interpretivism and suicide
Douglas (1967) rejects the positivist view that external social
facts determine our behaviour, and instead argues that
individuals have free will and actions are based on meanings.
* Therefore, we have to uncover the meanings of those
involved to understand suicide.
Ethnomethodolgist atkinson rejects the idea that external social facts determine behaviour and agrees that statistics are socially constructed.
* He also argues that we should use qualitative data from case
studies of suicide to reveal actor’s meanings and get a better
ideal of the real suicide rate, rather than use objective official
stats.
Postmodernism feminism and scientifc sociology
Postmodernists do not believe that sociology is a science. This is because they see science
as a metanarrative (big story) and no more valid than other accounts of the world, which is
why we shouldn’t use the same approach for sociology.
* They also reject science because it dominates itself as ‘correct’ compared the many other
viewpoints in the world , which means scientific sociology make false claims about the truth
as well as excluding other theories.
* Poststructuralists feminists agree, arguing a dominant, scientific feminism excludes many
groups of women, and some argue quantitative methods are oppress and don’t actually
portray women’s experiences.
why is kuhn and popper involved
They put forward different pictures of science as not everyone accepts the positivists portrayal of the natural sciences.
Karl Popper
most influentionial philospher of science of 20th century.His ideas about science have mportant implications for sociology
many systems of thought claim to have true knowledge about the world such as religion
Popper sets out to answer two related questions about science
what is it that dinstinguishes scientific knowledge from other forms of knowledge-what makes scientific knowledge unqiue
Why has scinetifci knowledge been able to grow so spectacularly in just a few centuries
Karl Popper How science grows((Fallacy of Induction
Argues that inductive reasoning and verificationism aren’t the distinctive features of science.
* Instead, he argues we should reject verificationism due to the ‘fallacy of induction’- where verification ignores that new evidence can come in at any time and prove a theory wrong.
Induction is process of moving from observation to arriving to a general statement or law
Examples of swans all swans are white a single observation of a black swan will destroy the theory.
Karl Popper How Science grows):Falsificationism
- This is the opposite of verificationism- where a scientific statement is capable of being proved wrong via evidence.
- Popper says a good theory is once that is falsifiable in principle, but stands up to all attempts to disprove it.
It is bold that is it claims to explain a great deal it makes big genralisations that precisely predict a large number of cases and so is at a greater risk being falsified
Essentially, all knowledge is temporary and refutable at any moment.
Popper conclusion of sociology by scientific
Popper argues sociology isn’t a science because its theories can’t undergo falsification.
* For example, Marxism says there will be a WCR that leads to a classless society, but there also won’t be because of false class consciousness.
This prediction can’t be falsified because Marxism will be correct either way
* However, he thinks some sociology can be falsified, which opens the
debate back up as to whether it’s a science. EG- Ford (1969) hypothesises that comprehensive schooling would cause mixing of social classes, and then tested and falsified this idea though her research.
