Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Sociology and Science - Coggle Diagram
Sociology and Science
Realist Sociology
- Argues Sociology can be
Scientific
Believe that sociology can be
scientific
- but divide science into
2 types
The study of
closed systems
- subjects like chemistry where the
variable
can be
closely controlled
and laboratory experiments can be done
The study of
open systems
- subjects such as meteorology where the variables are
difficult
to control
Scientists can't make very accurate predictions and can't easily test them experimentally
Sayer
(1984) argued that sociology is the scientific study of an
open system
Society, like the weather, is
too complex
a system to lend itself to accurate predictions and experiments, but that doesn't mean that sociology's not a science
Use
quantitative
and
qualitative
methods
Individual human motivations - which are investigated by
history
or
researching
things that can't be
directly observed
(or couldn't at the time) e.g.
black holes
in space
Argue science isn't fundamentally defined by the
collection
and
recording
of
observable data
- for them it's the
search
for the
underlying causes
of
things
, even if those causes aren't directly observable
Believe that the
mechanisms
behind social trends and phenomena are
real
and can be
scientifically studied
Argue that sociology
can't
be entirely
value-free
, but researchers must try to
collect
and
present data
in a
clear
and
neutral
way
Different Philosophies
of
Science
Logical Positivists
- Believe scientists go off in search of scientific laws
1) Researcher
observes
something, and decides it needs to be
explained
2) Researcher thinks up a
hypothesis
to
explain
the observed phenomenon
3) Hypothesis is
tested
by
experiments
4) If the experiments
agree
with the hypothesis, then it becomes a
scientific law
Scientific laws are
universal
- they explain all phenomena which are similar to the one which was observed in the first place
This is called
verification
Popper
(1959, 1963) - Argued that experiments should try to prove the hypothesis wrong (falsification)
You can't ever
prove
a hypothesis
100% correct
, no matter how much evidence you've got - but you can prove it
wrong
with just
one piece
of evidence that
contradicts
it
For example, the hypothesis 'all swans are white' isn't proved correct by seeing one flock of white swans
You'd have to look at
every single swan in the universe
and see that they were all white, but if you see just
one black swan
, that proves that 'all swans are white'
isn't true
Believed it wasn't possible to know
absolute truth
, because you can't prove things are correct
Criticised
by later philosophers of science who point out that a experimental result might disagree with a hypothesis because of
experimental error
and **silly mistakes
In chemistry practicals, you may not get the
predicted result
, but that doesn't mean you've
proved chemistry wrong
- it usually means you've made a
mistake
Kuhn
(1962) - Disagreed with both Logical positivists and Popper
Believed that science uses an
accepted body of knowledge
to solve puzzles
Called this 'normal science' and was pretty
critical
of it
Thought that scientists took a lot of
assumptions
about the world
for granted
This assumed
way of looking at the world
is called a
'paradigm'
Said that what scientists do is
constrained
by the
paradigm
they take for granted
E.g. for hundreds of years people thought the Sun went round the Earth, and astronomical observations were
interpreted
according to the paradigm that the Sun went around the Earth
Argues that
big leaps
of scientific progress come about when
evidence
which
doesn't fit the paradigm
builds up to the point where
it can't be ignored
Then, scientists come up with a
new paradigm
, this process is called
scientific revolution
Feyerabend
(1875) - Claimed that there
weren't
any
hard and fast rules
of scientific method
Argued that scientists make all kids of
tweaks
to theories to make them work
Disagreed with the idea that science tests hypotheses according to whether they fit observed facts, claiming that
already accepted theories
influence the way scientists actually
observe
facts
Science
- Uses
Experiments
and
Observation
to
Test Theories
Scientists collect data through
experiments, observation
and
measurement
in order to
test hypotheses
Hypothesis = unproved theory
Science values
objectivity
(unbiased viewpoint)
Scientific statements are
based on evidence
which has been collected using
systematic, logical methods
Disagreement
About Whether
Sociology
is
Scientific
Popper
said that some sociological concepts
weren't scientific
as they couldn't possibly **proved wrong
Sociology could only be a science if it made
hypotheses
which could be
falsified
Kuhn
argues that sociology
doesn't have a paradigm
- there isn't a consensus as to what it's about and how it's done
In his view, it doesn't count as a science
More Subjective
than
Traditional Science
Objective knowledge
is the
same
no matter what your
point of view
is
Objective methods
provide
facts
that can be easily
verified
or
falsified
Objective research
is also
value-free
, and doesn't have any
bias
Subjective knowledge
depends on your
point of view
Subjective methods
give data that
can't
be easily tested
Subjective research
requires
interpretation
Sociology is
more subjective
than the physical
sciences
Positivist Sociologists
- Try to be as
Objective
as
Possible
Think sociology should be
Scientific
and
analyse social facts
Define social facts as things that can be
directly observed and measured
e.g. the number of followers of Christianity in Britain
Claim that social facts are
external
to individuals, and constrain their behaviour
Look for
correlations in data
, and
cause and effect relationships
To do this, they use
quantitative methods
like
questionnaires
and
official statistics
, which are
objective
and
reliable
Interpretivists
- Take a More
Subjective Approach
Try to understand human behaviour from the point of view of the
individual
, so they use
qualitative methods
that let them discover the
meanings, motives
and
reasons
behind
human behaviour
and
social interaction
Weber
said it's important to use
empathy
to figure out
why
and individual is doing what they're doing
He called this
"Verstehen"
Interpretivists do this a lot - it's like putting yourself in
someone else's shoes