Soc a science?
- Created by: lw121x
- Created on: 28-05-15 21:29
View mindmap
- Is Sociology A Science?
- Comte
- it is possible to discover laws that control/shape behaviour in society
- Science isn't there to tell us why something came
- Science is there to explain why things relate to each other using laws
- Main Task SOC discover general laws of social development
- Positivist- social world should resemble the natural physical world they're both made up of objective facts governed my external laws
- Durkheim- thought that Comte failed to establish sociology as a science.
- Comte
- it is possible to discover laws that control/shape behaviour in society
- Science isn't there to tell us why something came
- Science is there to explain why things relate to each other using laws
- Main Task SOC discover general laws of social development
- Positivist- social world should resemble the natural physical world they're both made up of objective facts governed my external laws
- Instead you should study social facts things to observe/ measure ie. suicide rate
- Comte
- Popper Positivist 'science' must subject themselves to falsification process
- rejected Marx as pseudo science as concepts ie. false class consciousness
- build on achievements of other scientists.
- Soc can be scientific if falsfied
- Interpretivist is opposite.
- Weber need to understand from the perspective of other people how + why things happen
- Verstenhen need subjective understanding of the people
- to understand you cannot be objective
- The approach is rich and insightful data reveals experiences / motives of people
- scientific knowledge socially constructed not objective
- Society cannot be studied like objects; people engage in interaction
- Verstenhen need subjective understanding of the people
- to understand you cannot be objective
- The approach is rich and insightful data reveals experiences / motives of people
- Verstenhen need subjective understanding of the people
- Society cannot be studied like objects; people engage in interaction
- CRITIQUE
- wrong assume not scientific as underlying structures causing events are unobservable but we can see they exist by observing their effects
- Untitled
- wrong assume not scientific as underlying structures causing events are unobservable but we can see they exist by observing their effects
- Kuhn - MIDDLE
- not simply accumulation of knowledge- a series of paradigm shifts
- 1. Pre science - period of discovery no central paradigm 2. normal science ie. evolution 3. revolutionary where paradigms are challenge d
- Paradigm shifts. Take place when theries in normal science ie MMR challenged by rev
- Sociology then behave in pre science way; no dominating theories lots of competing
- totally valid to refer to it as a 'young science' needs unifying theory
- By implying that science is capable of disproving all the time = implying we'll never get the truth
- Science is based on shared assumptions - paradigms
- when anomalies build up established p loses credibility = scientific revolution
- Positivism- Sociology should be value free. Sociology should study observable phenomena ie. correlations
- Interpretivism- cannot be value free soc will use subjective findings.
- Critique
- Critical Theory: fails to explain why correlations exist between variables
- Universal research methods do not tailor to unique experiences of women
- Positivism 'hypotheticodeductive approach'
- 1. observation problem observed and needs explanation
- 2. Hypothesis. Possible explanation put forward
- Experiment: hypothesis rigorously tested
- Theorising: if confirmed law created
- Weber- should be value relevant but bit value free. Need to use objective feelings to identify research/ how they carry it out
- Becker- impossible to study anything ithout using your personal opinion. Ie. sociologists clearly left/ right wing
- Blumer necessary for soc to immerse themselves in the people they study
- Comte
- PROBLEM POSITIVISTS ie. COMTE + POPPER
- Realist Sayer says positivists mistake the nature of science
- Many science based on unobservable phenomena ie. evolution
- Sciences like seismology based on unobservable structuresrather than empirical
- Much science cannot make precise prediction, seismologists ca't predict exactly when earthquake will happen
- These types of sciences are 'open sciences' and soc may come under it as it is concerned with underlying structures
- Realist Sayer says positivists mistake the nature of science
Comments
No comments have yet been made