Is sociology a science? Flashcards
What do mainstream academics recognise as the key features of science?(5)
Who came up with the CUDOS norms? What are they?
-Organised and systematic
-Empirical(knowledge gained through experience)
-Rigorous in the testing of hypotheses.
-Cumulative (new knowledge builds on existing knowledge).
-Collective(Science community peer reviews).
-Merton describes CUDOS norms as:
-Communalism (the scientific community works together and its findings belong to everyone.)
-Universalism (open to and applicable to everyone.)
-Disinterestedness (scientists work simply to further knowledge, it is not for their own personal gain.)
-Organised Skepticism(science questions everything nothing is sacred).
What do positivists believe sociology can be used to produce?
How does reality justify this? Human mind?
-Positivists believe that sociology can use scientific methods to establish social facts and prove universal laws.
-Reality is patterned, and these empirical(factual) patterns can be studied through systematic observation and measurement.
-Reality exists outside and independently of the human mind so, like the natural world, society too is an objective reality.
What methods do positivists advocate for?
After identifying a problem and completing research what does a sociologist do next?
What type of research methods? Which data is produced?
What is done with the data?
-They argue sociologists should use scientific methods.
-They identify a problem, following research formulate a hypothesis.
-They use rigorous, reliable research methods to produce quantitative data.
-That data is analysed systematically and the conclusions are published in peer reviewed journals.
Why did Durkheim study suicide?
How did he do it?
Why is this criticised by interpretivists/postmodernists?
Other Positivists(concepts)(reliability)?
-Durkheim set out to prove that the science of society could explain even this most anti-social phenomena.
-He gathered quantitative data; he tested his hypothesis against a range of variables and he reached a conclusion.
-Interpretivists and postmodernists both argue this approach misunderstands human behaviour. Humans are not like elements or molecules: they can choose how to act.
-Others argue his study failed to be scientific because the compariosn of suicide rates between countries was unlikely to be reliable. Plus his concepts of social cohesion/control were too vague to be accurately measured or compared. They could not be operationalised.
What do interpretivists argue sociology is unable to establish?
What are these really?
What happens if you attempt to treat these scientifically?
Subsequently what do interpretivists conclude about sociology’s relationship with science?
-Sociology cannot establish social facts.
-Interpretivists see social facts as social constructs.
-To treat them scientifically is to misunderstand them.
-Therefore, interpretivists conclude not only is sociology not a science but it should not try to be one.
What do interpretivists argue sociologists should be interested in?
What are these interests unable to be?
-Advocate for a sociological interest in:
Subjective views
Emotions
Opinions
Values.
-These interests cannot be empirically measured or counted: they require interpretation and empathy.
What does Popper criticise positivists for?
Instead according to Popper what makes science unique?
Describe it.
Using Popper’s theory what would a good theory be?
-Popper argues that positivists wrongfully assume that science involves the process of verificationism.
-Popper argues what makes science unique is the reverse of verificationism instead it uses the principle of falsificationism.
-Falsificationism is the idea that a statement is scientific if it is capable of being falsified(disproved by evidence).
-A good theory therefore is one that(a) in principle falsifiable but, when tested, in fact stands up to all attempts to disprove it(b) explains a great deal.
Who established the theory of scientific paradigms?
What is a paradigm?
How are scientists socialised into a paradigm?
What does science need to exist? If not?
-Thomas Kuhn.
-A paradigm is a shared framework held by members of a given scientific community- a kind of culture.
-Scientists are socialised into a paradigm through their education and training and come to accept it as uncritically true.
-Science requires a paradigm to exist if not they will just be rival schools of thought not a unified science.
COMPLETE REALISM AND SCIENCE
What two questions is Popper interested in answering?
Subsequently what scientific method has he divulged to provide an explanation?
What does Popper argue about all knowledge?
How does Popper’s theory explain how we should view sociology? What can it become?
-What makes scientific knowledge unique? And why has scientific knowledge grown so spectacularly in a few centuries?
-Falsificationism.
-Popper argues that all knowledge is provisional. A theory that appears true is simply one that withstood attempts to falsify it so far. (all swans are white).
-Much sociology is unscientific because its theories could not be proved false. (Marx’s revolution prediction).
-However, sociology can be scientific by producing hypothesis that could be tested and in principle falsified.
-Some ideas are of value that may be able to be tested at a later date.
For Thomas Kuhn what is normal science?
What are anomalies in science?
What does science enter in following a decline of confidence?
What is a scientific revolution?
-For most of the time, the paradigm goes unquestioned and scientists do ‘puzzle solving’ within the paradigm. This allows the scientific community to accumulate knowledge.
-Anomalies happen from time to time, scientists obtain findings contrary to those predicted by the paradigm. If too many are found confidence declines.
-Science enters into a crisis and scientists begin to formulate rival paradigms.
-A scientific revolution is when one paradigm wins and becomes accepted by the scientific community, allowing normal science to resume.
What does Kuhn’s theory imply about sociology?
What do postmodernists argue?
How does Kuhn reject Popper’s view?
-Sociology is divided into competing perspectives so it is currently pre-paradigmatic and pre-scientific according to Kuhn’s model of science.
-Sociology could only become a science if disagreements were resolved.
-Postmodernists argue that a paradigm would also not be desirable in sociology too much meta-narrative.
-Kuhn rejects Popper’s view that science is open, critical and rational- Kuhn sees scientists as essentially conformists blinkered by the paradigm.
What are the two versions of interpretivism?
Describe what they argue about research methods.
-Interactionists & phenomenologists/
ethnomethodologists.
-Interactionists argue we can have causal explanations, but through a ‘bottom up’ approach, or grounded theory. Rather than entering the research with a fixed hypothesis as positivists do, ideas emerge gradually from observations made.
-Phenomenologists/ethno such as Atkinson completely reject the possibility of causal explanations of human behaviour. Their radically anti-structural view argues that society is not a real thing ‘out there’.
What other sociological approach agrees with interpretivists in rejecting sociology as a science?
What do they view science as?
Why? How is science dangerous?
-Postmodernism and feminism.
-A meta-narrative.
-Science’s account of the world is no more valid than any other, so there is no reason why science should be the model of sociology.
-Science is also dangerous for claiming monopoly of the truth and excluding other points of view. Feminists argue it excludes women.
Why are interpretivists criticised for their view on science? Journalism? Weber? Social policy?
-If sociology is not a science then what is it? How much use is it?
-The purpose of sociology as an academic discipline, cannot simply be the describe phenomena, otherwise what makes it different from journalism.
-Weber, argues that it is more important for researchers to be objective.
-For sociology to be of use in helping the development of social policy it needs to be shown to be rigorous and factual, not just based on opinion.
