Phenomenologist realise that scientists are meant to be objective and value free, but cannot be as they belong to society. They realise that scientist are a part of society, therefore they have social pressures, which they give into. This would imply that some of their experiments conducted could be opinions and knowledge. Popper does not realise this. Based on this theory, sociology is like science, as sociologists like scientists have values and cannot always be objective. Consequently their work can be influenced by their beliefs. An example of this could be Marxist ideas about capitalism. Phenomenologist, believe that sociologists should limit themselves to understanding the meanings and classifications which people use to give order to and make sense of the world. Phenomenologist, concentrate almost entirely on the subjective aspects of social life, which are internal to the individual’s consciousness. They therefore tend to use rather different methods from the more scientific approaches.
Mann has proposed that science is a systematic process. He suggests that scientists first observe than classify their observation and finally come to a conclusion. According to him if this is true then sociology is a science. He thinks that sociologists go through the same systematic process as scientists.
Thomas Kuhn suggests scientists operate differently from the way in which positivists and Popper have suggested. Kuhn argues that science is characterized by a commitment to a scientific paradigm. A paradigm consists of a set of beliefs shared by a group of scientists about what the natural world is composed of. A paradigm is a complete theory and frame work within a scientist operates. It guides what evidence is collected, and how it should be analysed and explained. When scientists work within a paradigm, they tend to look for data that supports and refines that paradigm. Scientists see the world in ways that are consistent with the paradigm.
Kuhn does not believe that the same methods and procedures are found throughout scientific history. Kuhn also does not think scientists are entirely objective. Paradigms are accepted or rejected on the basis of evidence alone. Established scientists trained to think within the frame work by a paradigm find it difficult to see the world in any other way. Scientists have an interest of maintaining it for their academic reputation and career their career rest upon the work they have done within the paradigm. Consequently scientists may ignore evidence that does not fit their paradigm.
There are problems with Kuhn’s work. His theory is based on inadequate research evidence. It is difficult to test it. Also if Kuhn’s ideas are accepted then sociology cannot be seen as a science. Sociologists have not accepted one paradigm. If they had then there would not be loads of sociological theories, such as Marxist, functionalists, and feminists. Even though there are problems with this theory he realises that scientists are not objective and could see thing to save their reputation.
Realists believe that positivists, Popper and Kuhn are mistaken about the nature of science. Realists say that there are similarities between social and natural sciences. Sayer argues that there is a difference between closed and open systems, as objects of scientific theory. Within closed systems all the relevant variables can be controlled and measured. In scientific laboratory experiments, closed systems may be produced and certain branches of science such as physics and chemistry have much more scope for the study of closed systems than others.
There are many areas of science in which all the relevant variables cannot be controlled or measured. As a result cannot make precise predictions as Popper has suggested. An example of this is doctors cannot predict when someone will become ill a seismologist cannot predict exactly when an earthquake will occur. In all of these cases the reasons for the lack of precision are similar. Some of the variables cannot be measured, or the process involved one is more complex for accurate predictions to be made.
Sociologists have similar problems. Within society as a whole, or within a social group, innumerable variables may influence what happens. Sociologists cannot be expected to predict exactly what the divorce rate will be in five years time, or whether a revolution will occur within a given period of time. Even if it is accepted that science does not need to make predictions, this leaves the problem of human consciousness to be dealt with. positivist believe that a science should confine itself to study of the observable, whereas interpretive sociologists believe that reference must be made to internal and unobservable meanings and motives in explaining human behaviour. Realists point out; science itself does not confine itself to studying observable phenomena.
Viruses, sub-atomic particles and magnetic fields, all form part of scientific theories, despite the impossibility of directly observing them. Scientists cannot easily observe continental drift, because it takes place too slowly, nor can they see the mechanisms that produce it, because they are below the earth’s surface. Darwin’s could not observe evolution, because it took place too slowly.
To realists both Popper and positivists have failed to define science accurately, and so the objections raised by interpretive sociologist to seeing sociology as the attempt to explain the causes of events in the natural or social world in terms of underlying and often unobservable structures, mechanisms and processes. Realists produce causal explanations and explain them in terms of such structures mechanisms and processes. An example of this would be Darwin’s idea of natural selection. In sociology examples include the ideas on the concentration of capital and pauperization of the proletariat.
Realists explain the mechanisms through events that take place are a vital part of causal explanation. It requires researchers to specify which factors or variables determine whether these mechanisms operate. For example, in different conditions the concentration of capital might be slowed down, speeded up or hauled. Similarly in Darwin’s theory of evolution the actual consequences of the operation of natural selection depend on upon the precise and changing environmental conditions in which the species evolve.
Realists think events take place and mechanisms operate within the context of structures. Sayer defines structures as ‘sets of internally relaxed objects in practices’. An example could be the relationship between landlords and tenants to illustrate a structure in society. One cannot exist without the other. Structure imposes limitations or constraints upon what happens, but mechanisms and variables that affect them determine the actual course of events. For example the structure of relationship between landlords and tenants does not determine which individual occupies the property being rented, but it does determine that the tenant pays rent and the landlord does not. Structures are often unobservable, but a natural or social scientist can work out that they are there by observing their effects. Social classes cannot be seen nor can the infrastructure and superstructure of society, but to a Marxist they are real.
According to the realist view of science much of sociology is scientific. Realists such as Keat and Urry, Marxist sociology is scientific because it develops models of underlying structure and processes in society, which are evaluated and modified in the light of empirical evidence. Unlike positivists, realists do not automatically reject interpretive sociology as unscientific, because they believe that studying unobservable meaning and motives is perfectly compatible with a scientific subject. From this view point there is relatively little difference between social and natural sciences. Some branches of natural science which have the luxury of studying ‘closed’ systems can be more precise than sociology, but others take the same difficulty as sociology in trying to deal with highly complex open systems. Both natural sciences and sociology have common aims. They try to develop models and theories that can explain the world on objectively as possible on the basis on the available evidence.
In conclusion as we can see scientific thinking and methods has influenced sociological research enormously. Each of the theories looked at are valid in their own way. However, I think realists are quite accurate, as both science and sociology are not able to make accurate predictions of what is going to happen. Science has affected sociology thinking and methods as a lot of the theories are trying to be scientific. Therefore a vast majority of the researchers think scientists are objective, so if sociologists are trying to imitate science thinking and methods they are attempting to be objective. This could result in their work being valid and of a high standard if their own values and belief are disregarded.
