Sociology as a science
- Created by: Jade1602
- Created on: 26-02-20 10:52
View mindmap
- Patterns, laws and Inductive reasoning
- Reality isn't random or chaotic but patterned, observed these factual patterns through science
- Believe Durkheim "real laws are discoverable", sociologists can discover laws that determine how society works
- Induction: involves accumulating data about the world through careful observation and measurement
- As knowledge grows, patterns appear.
- Positivism
- Can sociology be a science?
- Interpretivism
- G.H. Mead: rather than responding automatically to external stimuli, humans interpret meaning of stimulus and then choose how to respond
- Sociology: studies people, who do have a consciousness. People make a sense of and construct their world by attaching meanings to it.
- Subject matter of sociology is meaningful social action and it is not a science
- Natural science: studies matter, has no consciousness. Behaviour explained as a straight forward reaction to external stimuli
- Thomas Kuhn
- The Paradigm
- Shared by members of given scientific community + defines what their science is.
- Basic framework of assumptions, principals, methods + techniques within which members of that community work.
- Thus it is a set of norms, or a kind of culture, because it tells scientists how they ought to think + behave
- In Kuhn's view, a science can't exist without a shared paradigm. Until there's a general consensus on a single paradigm, there will only be rival school of thought, not a science as such
- Normal science
- Greatest advantage of the paradigm is it allows scientists to agree on the basics of their subject + get on with productive "puzzle-solving"work
- Contrasts with Popper.
- Most of the time, paradigm goes unquestioned + scientists do normal science
- Scientists engage in puzzle solving/ our job is simply to figure out how to put the pieces together to get the right puzzle
- Scientific revolutions
- Not all puzzle solving is successful.
- As anomalies grow, confidence in paradigm decreases.
- Science enters period of crisis
- Scientists begin to develop rival paradigms = scientific revolution
- Kuhn: rival paradigms are in-commensurable - 2 competing paradigms can't be judged or measured by the same set of standards to decide the "best"
- Eventually, 1 paradigm wins + accepted by scientific community
- Kuhn: rival paradigms are in-commensurable - 2 competing paradigms can't be judged or measured by the same set of standards to decide the "best"
- Scientists begin to develop rival paradigms = scientific revolution
- Process is not rational
- Kuhn compares it to religious conversions
- Not all puzzle solving is successful.
- The Paradigm
- Implications for Sociology
- Pre-paradigmatic = Pre-scientific
- Sociology can only become a science if such basic disagreements were resolved
- Postmodernists might argue that a paradigm would also no be desirable in sociology
- Sounds like a meta-narrative: a dominant + dominating view of what reality's like
- Realism, science and sociology
- Realists argue sociologists study open systems where the processes are too complex to make exact predictions
- Keat +Urry
- Stress similarities between sociology + types of natural science in terms of degree of control the researcher has over variables being studied
- Closed systems: Those where research can control + measure relevant variables + can make precise predictions of the sort Popper advocates.
- Open systems: those where researchers can't control + measure relevant variables, so can't make predictions
- Underlying structures
- Keat + Urry
- Also means, interpretivists wrong in assuming sociology can't be scientific
- If realists are correct + science can study unobservable things, then no barriers to study meanings scientifically
- For realists, both natural + social science attempt to explain the cause of events in terms of underlying structures + processes, can see they exist by observing effects
- In this view, most of sociology is scientific
- Unlike interpretivists, realists see little difference between natural science + sociology, except some natural scientists are able to study closed systems under lab conditions
- Interpretivism
- Suicide
- Durkheim
- Claimed to have discovered "real law": sociology has own unique subject matter + these can be explained scientifically
- Conclusion: these patterns couldn't be product of individual motives but social facts
- He decided, social facts that determined suicide rates were levels of integration and regulation
- Studied the suicide to show sociology = science with own distinct subject matter
- They believe it is favourable to apply logic + methods of natural sciences to study of society
- Provide true and objective knowledge
- Can sociology be a science?
- Verstehen and qualitative research
- Interpretivism
- G.H. Mead: rather than responding automatically to external stimuli, humans interpret meaning of stimulus and then choose how to respond
- Sociology: studies people, who do have a consciousness. People make a sense of and construct their world by attaching meanings to it.
- Subject matter of sociology is meaningful social action and it is not a science
- Natural science: studies matter, has no consciousness. Behaviour explained as a straight forward reaction to external stimuli
- To achieve verstehen and understand meanings people give to their actions, we need to see the world through their eyes
- Abandon detachment + objectivity, put yourself in place of the individual (using Weber's verstehen)
- Use qualitative data + data such as participant observation
- Produce richer, more personal data = high validity
- Interpretivism
- Interactionists
- Reject positivist view of having definitive hypothesis before research
- Glaser and Strauss: argue this risks researcher bias rather than taking actors viewpoint
- Can produce testable hypothesis after.
- Prefer 'bottom-up' approach. Ideas emerge gradually from observations we make during research.
- Reject positivist view of having definitive hypothesis before research
- Postmodernists, Feminism and scientific sociology
- Pms argue against scientific sociology; natural science = meta-narrative
- Scientific approach dangerous as it claims monopoly of the truth, excluding other perspectives
- Postructuralist feminists argue searching for a single, scientific feminist theory is a form of domination.
- The fallacy of Induction
- Main reason to reject verification = "the fallacy of induction"
- Popper disagrees with positivists: doesn't agree distinctive features of science lie in inductive reasoning + verification.
- Induction: process of moving from observation of particular instances of something to arrive at a statement/law.
- Asks 2 questions:
- 2. Why has scientific knowledge been able to grow so spectacularly in just a few centuries?
- 1. What is it that distinguishes scientific knowledge from other forms of knowledge?
- Karl Popper
- Can sociology be a science?
- Thomas Kuhn
- The Paradigm
- Shared by members of given scientific community + defines what their science is.
- Basic framework of assumptions, principals, methods + techniques within which members of that community work.
- Thus it is a set of norms, or a kind of culture, because it tells scientists how they ought to think + behave
- In Kuhn's view, a science can't exist without a shared paradigm. Until there's a general consensus on a single paradigm, there will only be rival school of thought, not a science as such
- Normal science
- Greatest advantage of the paradigm is it allows scientists to agree on the basics of their subject + get on with productive "puzzle-solving"work
- Contrasts with Popper.
- Most of the time, paradigm goes unquestioned + scientists do normal science
- Scientists engage in puzzle solving/ our job is simply to figure out how to put the pieces together to get the right puzzle
- Scientific revolutions
- Not all puzzle solving is successful.
- As anomalies grow, confidence in paradigm decreases.
- Science enters period of crisis
- Scientists begin to develop rival paradigms = scientific revolution
- Kuhn: rival paradigms are in-commensurable - 2 competing paradigms can't be judged or measured by the same set of standards to decide the "best"
- Eventually, 1 paradigm wins + accepted by scientific community
- Kuhn: rival paradigms are in-commensurable - 2 competing paradigms can't be judged or measured by the same set of standards to decide the "best"
- Scientists begin to develop rival paradigms = scientific revolution
- Process is not rational
- Kuhn compares it to religious conversions
- Not all puzzle solving is successful.
- The Paradigm
- Implications for Sociology
- Pre-paradigmatic = Pre-scientific
- Sociology can only become a science if such basic disagreements were resolved
- Postmodernists might argue that a paradigm would also no be desirable in sociology
- Sounds like a meta-narrative: a dominant + dominating view of what reality's like
- Realism, science and sociology
- Realists argue sociologists study open systems where the processes are too complex to make exact predictions
- Keat +Urry
- Stress similarities between sociology + types of natural science in terms of degree of control the researcher has over variables being studied
- Closed systems: Those where research can control + measure relevant variables + can make precise predictions of the sort Popper advocates.
- Open systems: those where researchers can't control + measure relevant variables, so can't make predictions
- Underlying structures
- Keat + Urry
- Also means, interpretivists wrong in assuming sociology can't be scientific
- If realists are correct + science can study unobservable things, then no barriers to study meanings scientifically
- For realists, both natural + social science attempt to explain the cause of events in terms of underlying structures + processes, can see they exist by observing effects
- In this view, most of sociology is scientific
- Unlike interpretivists, realists see little difference between natural science + sociology, except some natural scientists are able to study closed systems under lab conditions
- Thomas Kuhn
- The fallacy of Induction
- Main reason to reject verification = "the fallacy of induction"
- Popper disagrees with positivists: doesn't agree distinctive features of science lie in inductive reasoning + verification.
- Induction: process of moving from observation of particular instances of something to arrive at a statement/law.
- Falsification
- Criticism and Open Society
- Science is a public activity he argues this is why it grows so rapidly.
- Science thrives in "open" societies
- "Closed" are societies dominated by an official belief system that claims to have an absolute truth
- Implications for sociology
- He believes most of sociology is unscientific because it consists of theories that can't be put to the test with the possibility that it might be falsified.
- However, he believes sociology can be scientific because it is capable of producing hypotheses that can be falsified.
- Although he rejects Marxism as unscientific because it's unreliable, he doesn't believe that untestable ideas are worthless.
- Such ideas might be useful as they could become testable later + we can examine them for clarity + logic consistency
- Can sociology be a science?
- Falsificationism
- What makes science unique is very opposite of verificationism
- Falsification
- What makes science unique is very opposite of verificationism
- For Popper, good theories have 2 features:
- 2. It's bold - it claims to explain a lot. Makes big generalisations that predict large numer of cases/events.
- It's greater risk of being falsified than more timid theories.
- 1. It's falsifiable but when tested, stands up to all attempts to disprove it
- 2. It's bold - it claims to explain a lot. Makes big generalisations that predict large numer of cases/events.
- Truth
- A good theory isn't necessarily a true theory, it is simply one that has withstood attempts to falsify it so far.
- Karl Popper
- Criticism and Open Society
- Science is a public activity he argues this is why it grows so rapidly.
- Science thrives in "open" societies
- "Closed" are societies dominated by an official belief system that claims to have an absolute truth
- Implications for sociology
- He believes most of sociology is unscientific because it consists of theories that can't be put to the test with the possibility that it might be falsified.
- However, he believes sociology can be scientific because it is capable of producing hypotheses that can be falsified.
- Although he rejects Marxism as unscientific because it's unreliable, he doesn't believe that untestable ideas are worthless.
- Such ideas might be useful as they could become testable later + we can examine them for clarity + logic consistency
- Criticism and Open Society
- "all knowledge is provisional, temporary, capable pf refutation at any moment"
- There can never be absolute proof that any knowledge is true
- "all knowledge is provisional, temporary, capable pf refutation at any moment"
- A society that believes in free expressions + the right to challenges accepted ideas.
- Watkins: Popper sees falsification as the unique feature of science. Kuhn says it's puzzle solving within a paradigm that makes science appeal.
- Realists reject positivist view that science only concerned with observable phenomena
- Argue science often assumes existence of unobservable structures
Comments
No comments have yet been made