Science and Sociology

?

Science and Sociology

Advantages

  • Compte - coined the term 'sociology', wanted to apply scientific methods/logic to the study of humans in order to solve social problems and achieve progress. Argued that social phenomena can be like physical phenomena- quantitative data e.g. official statistics will help us make comparisons. Sociology can be a science and always should be.
  • Durkheim - "real laws about society are discoverable". Sociologists can determine laws of society like scientists. They can use inductive reasoning- must be developed and tested to prove truths - verificationism. Linked to Durkheim study of suicide. Argues there are external, independent 'real things' that exist in the social world that can be observed and measured e.g. social class, language, religion. Found correlations between suicide rates and a number of social facts.
  • Keat and Urry - Realists - society is not something that exists outside of our minds but you can observe the effects on society. See little difference between certain kinds of natural science and sociology- but sociology should be studied from an OPEN perspective - cannot make predictions e.g. physicists cant see black holes but can study them, sociologists cant see class but we can observe its effects- there is no barrier to study the meanings/social actions of people

Disadvantages

  • Kuhn - claims that if sociology can accept one paradigm then it can be scientific. He argues that ‘normal science’ operates within an accepted framework of concepts and procedures, or in other words, a paradigm. This scientific paradigm is rarely questioned linked example of Dr Velikovsky. It is also only replaced when in depth analysis and research is done to disprove it, and then it will be changed by a new paradigm. Sociology differentiates itself from this, as there is competition between various theories that are constantly being challenged. In Kuhn’s view, sociology doesn’t have a shared paradigm and therefore by its definition is not scientific.
  • G.H. Mead -People have free will- humans interpret meanings of stimulus then choose how to respond to it, they dont respond automatically and in a certain/specific way - humans are conscious and free
  • Popper - (criticism of Durkheim) rather than looking for evidence that confirms their theories, scientists should do their best to disprove their theories (falsification). Popper argues that Marx’s theory of history fails in this respect because it cannot be falsified and is therefore unscientific.
  • Garfinkle - Ethnomethodolodist - rejects the possibility of a causal explanation of human behaviour, society exists only in their consciousness and is socially constructed- not an external force, society is not a 'real thing'. Argues that society does not determine our actions- no possibility of cause-and-effect explanations like science.
  • Glasser and Strauss - typifications -appearance the world is orderly but it is simply a construction- we can make sense of the world through shared concepts, unstable meanings - argues there are risks imposing our own view of what is important rather than taking into account the actors viewpoint- distort the reality we are seeking to capture
  • Feminists - (similar to PM) Domination of a single scientific truth often excludes groups e.g. females. Quantitative methods are oppressive. Science - always has been and still is male dominated and promote this to all women e.g. in education- more likely to be male teachers and textbooks seem to use more male examples. Science also have made many discoveries that be-little women e.g. men have bigger brains that women that they can use to subordinate and oppress women.
  • Postmodernists - science is a big meta-narrative (big story) which claims to have the truth. There is a monopoly of truths claiming one particular truth is a false claim and a form of domination - which has all contributed and led to a risk society e.g. science making nuclear weapons - Chernobyl. A paradigm is not desirable in sociology- silences minority views and falsely claims to have special access to the truth

Evaluation

Many more arguments against sociology than for. 

Comments

No comments have yet been made