"Whether or not Sociology is Scientific Depends on which Definition of Science we choose" Explain and Discuss

“Whether or not Sociology is Scientific Depends on which Definition of Science we choose”

Explain and Discuss

Bex Lycett

Sociologists have been divided on the issue of whether or not sociology is a science for as long as anyone remembers. It is a very controversial topic in sociology, due to the number of conflicting views about what it is to be scientific and according to the definitions of what is scientific, whether sociology can be categorised as a science.

Durkheim and Compte, positivist’s believed that sociological studies should be based on the same logic and methods as natural science; they stated that this would create a “positive science society” and would allow us to discover laws of human behaviour, similar to the way scientists discovered the laws of gravity. Positivists believe that human behaviour, like that of a plant is influenced by external factors, that society shapes us and therefore that these factors can be isolated, controlled and measured. Durkheim believed that he had done just this when he had studied suicide, isolated the factor of being isolated as the cause of suicide.

Popper was a famous philosopher of science, and he agreed with some of the positivist’s theories, claiming that indeed sociology could be a science. He said that natural sciences are scientific because they use the hypothetico-deductive approach, and look at evidence which may disprove their theory, as well as enforce it, he then went on to say that if sociologist could look at conflicting, as well as supporting evidence when trying to prove their theories, then indeed sociology could be considered scientific. Popper disagrees that human behaviour is only a product of outside stimuli, and so he is not a positivist, he simply agrees that sociology can be classed as scientific but in order to do so, studies must be conducted so that a hypothesis can be enforced or falsified. Popper argued that Marxism wasn’t a scientific approach, because when its theory of a revolution failed but come true, they simply pushed its coming further into the future, instead of admitting the original hypothesis was untrue, therefore they prevented any possibility that the original theory had been false because they simply adapted it.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Realists also believe that sociology is scientific, and claim that there is not much difference between sociological studies and natural science investigations. They held this view because like natural science investigations, sociology tries to explain the causes of behaviour in terms of underlying causes, which are not visible in everyday life. Sayer focussed on the fact that in all areas of science there were “open” and “closed” systems, for example in some situations, a lab can be used where variables can be controlled, but also in areas such as meteorology, experiments cannot always be fully controlled, he argued that sociology faced the same problem, studying issues which were relevant but complex, like meteorologists, sociologists had to deal with the fact that there may be “other” influences, but this does not mean that the studies they do are not scientific. Both study hidden causes of things relevant to their field, in ways that can be seen as scientific. The realist definition of science is “Being scientific involves explaining behaviour in terms of underlying structures, mechanisms and processes.” They believe that natural scientists and sociologists do, therefore sociology should be classed as a science.

In contrast to these viewpoints, Kuhn believes that sociology cannot be scientific because the field shares no single paradigm. Whereas in the field of science, certain facts are accepted by all, like the laws of gravity etc, in sociology there is no such agreement, in every area investigated, views conflict, it is due to this high level of disagreement that Kuhn states that sociology can’t be classed as scientific.

Phenomenologists and Interptivist’s also dispute the fact that sociology can be scientific. Based on the difference in the subjects studied, they believe that human behaviour cannot be ruled by laws of behaviour, as humans are conscious beings who have free will and the ability to think and learn, unlike atoms or plants, human behaviour cannot be predicted. Hence, their belief that sociology cannot be a science, they see it as absurd to consider this idea of studying humans as though they were objects, using hypothetico-deductive techniques Phenomenologists favour qualitative methods, as opposed to positivists who prefer quantitative methods, this is because phenomenologists and interpretivists believe that thoughts, feelings and motives a person has are a bigger factor to how they behave, than outside stimuli.

Therefore it can be seen that indeed whether or not sociology is seen as scientific, depends on how a person or group defines being scientific, and also what one considers sociology to be about, for example a phenomonologist who believes human behaviour is a result of personal motives, morals ad norms will argue that there is no accurate way to measure behaviour, unlike a positivist who will regard societies influence as being the cause of behaviour, and so will be able to control situations, and in turn measure results, which is to the general world, a scientific based experiment, manipulating cause and effect, therefore in that light sociology would be scientific. It should also be noted however, that even some natural science investigations cannot be seen as entirely objective, in all conditions, for example in meteorology, the results may be manipulated by factors, other than the ones the meteorologist is investigating. In conclusion it could be said that the best sociologists, and the most scientific way to conduct a sociological study would be to gather data in a way which is both systematic and as highly objective as possible, record the research and findings in an accurate manner, and allow others to judge the studies validity, based on the evidence, so it would be plain to see whether the study had flaws, or was done in a scientific, reliable and representative way.