Assess the view that sociology can and should model itself on the natural sciences

by billyrandom94 (student)

Sociology is defined as a social science, however the status as a science is questionable when compared to natural sciences such as physics and chemistry. If sociology should and can be a science depends pretty much on the definition of science and how it links together. Many sociologists disagree and take a different point of view of how sociology should be seen. So in this essay I am going to assess the view that sociology can and should be model itself on the natural sciences.

The question arose as part of the "Englightment Project" in the 18th century, as the belief in science over religion became more important. Science was seen as a provider of true and objective knowledge about the world, which could be used for progress . So the early modernist sociologists thought the same scientific principles could be applied to the understanding and betterment of society.

Positivists believe that it is possible and desirable to apply the logic and methods of the natural sciences to the study of society. Society, is like the nature, an objective factual reality ; it is a "real" thing made up of social facts that exists "out there", independently of individuals. They seek to discover the causes of patterns they observe to produce general statements or scientific laws, like natural scientists do. In order to do this, they use objective quantitative research, meaning value-free and number based data. They make up a hypothesis and test it in systematic and controlled ways, like in experiments. So these methods produce reliable data that can be checked by other researchers, which is one of the most important features in science.

In the natural sciences, it is claimed that scientists values and opinions make no difference to the outcome of their research. However, positivists know that in sociology they are dealing with humans and therefore there is a danger that the researcher may 'contaminate' the research. Positivists thus use quantitative methods which allow maximum objectivity, like experiments, questionnaires and structured interviews.

Interpretivist sociologists however do not believe that sociology should model itself on the natural sciences. They critcise positivists scientific approach as inadequate or even as completely unsuited to the study of human beings.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Interpretivists argue that the matter of sociology is meaningful social actions and we can only understand it by successfully interpreting the meanings and motives of the persons involved. In their view, sociology is not a science, because science only deals with laws of cause and effect, and not human meanings. They differentiate themselves of science by saying, that natural sciences have no consciousness about the behaviour of something, eg. an apple falling to the ground because of gravity. Whereas sociologists should have consciousness, as people have free will and choice . For example a motorist stopping at a red light. He stops because he understands the meaning of the red light and not because he is forced by external forces. So the job of the sociologists therefore is to uncover these meanings.

In order to do this, they use qualitative methods, such as participant observation and unstructured interviews, to go in depth and get valid data. They want to achieve 'verstehen' - empathetic understanding - and see the world from their viewpoint. So it gives the sociologists a subjective understanding of the actor's meanings and life-world.

To illustrate sociology as a science, Emile Durkheim conducted a study on suicide. He believed if he could show this highly individual act had social causes, it would establish sociology's status as a distinct and genuinely scientific discipline. Durkheim observed patterns in the suicide rate, by using statistics. For instance, he stated that the suicide rate in Protestant countries like Germany is higher than in Catholic countries like Italy and Spain. He explained it with Catholicism being more successful in integrating individuals. Thus Durkheim claimed to have discovered a real law, that different levels of integration produce different suicide rates. However, Jack Douglas rejects the positivist idea of external social facts determining our behaviour and therefore the view of sociology as being a science. For Douglas the suicide verdicts and the statistics based on them are the product of interactions and negotiations. He argues, we need to use qualitative methods to build up a typology of suicidal meanings. Atkinson even argues that we can never know the real rate of suicide, as all we can study is how the living come to classify a death as a suicide.

Although the interpretivists reject the positivist view that sociology is a science, they tend to agree with positivists about the definition of science. Natural science is the inductive reasoning or verificationism applied to the study of observable patterns. However, not everyone accepts this definition and a number of sociologists put forward quite different pictures of science.

Karl Popper puts forward the idea of falsification, meaning that theories should be falsified rather than verified, as it is impossible to prove everything. For example a hypothesis states that all swans are white. Using positivists inductive method would mean to gather data and test the hypothesis. The gathered data of maybe 20,000 swans with no swans of colour, would lead to a general theory. But Popper argues that the existence of 20,000 white swans does not prove that all swans are white, because the next swan may be black. So a good theory will stand the test of time, where it has not been falsified yet.

To link it to the question of sociology being scientific or not, Popper claims that too much sociology consists of theories that are not open to falsification, therefore they are not scientific. For example, the Marxist's theory suggests, that the capitalist system will be overthrown by a communist revolution at some point in the future. So this prediction cannot be falsified.

Thomas Kuhn idea is the paradigm - shared by members of a given scientific community and defines what their science is -. Science has to have boundaries to work in, e.g. what questions should be asked and what methods should be used. In his view, a science cannot exist without a shared paradigm. Until there is a general consensus on a single paradigm, there will be only rival schools of thought, not a science as such.

The paradigm defines the questions and answers. Scientists are left to fill in the detail or work out the 'neatest' solution. So the puzzle solving within a paradigm makes science special.

Currently sociology is pre paradigmatic and thus pre scientific, divided into competing perspectives. There is no shared agreement on the fundamentals of what to study, e.g. the different perspectives disagree as whether society is based on consensus or conflict. So on Kuhn's definition sociology can only become a science if such basic disagreements were resolved.

A third view about sociology and science comes from the realist approach. Realists such as Russel Keat and John Urry define science in terms of the degree of control. They distinguish between closed and open systems. In a closed system all variables can be measured and controlled, whereas in an open system the researcher cannot measure all relevant variables, e.g. a meteorologist cannot normally predict the weather with 100% accuracy. Sociology would fit in to the open system, as it is way too complex to have an influence on every factor. In general they say , science studies unobservable as well as observable facts. So to some extent they see sociology as a science, as sometimes we can only observe the effects, e.g. like scientist have never seen a black hole, sociologist can only study the effects of social class.

In conclusion, each of these views has implications for whether or not we regard sociology as a science. While positivists adopting natural sciences as a model, interpretivists reject the view that sociology can be scientific. The division is based in the disagreement of the nature of sociology and subject matter. So in fact, if sociology is a science or not depends on the definition of science, the methods being use and the conclusion the researcher states, as you cannot just ignore a whole perspective with valid aspects.