soc and science debate

soc and science debate

1. what is a science and what is sociology

   • science
     • something is scientific when it uses empirical evidence and objectivity and where the research does not involve bias or opinions
       • marx was criticised for not having enough empirical evidence
     • theories and laws that are tested by replication become accepted as scientific knowledge
     • a set of principals that tell us how to produce valid knowledge
       • it aims to base laws and theories on objective facts gained by observing phenomena
   • sociology
     • studies people who have consciousness. look at their meanings and actions, their ideas and constructs

2. is a science

   • positivists
     • comte
       • it is possible to discover the laws that control and shape the behaviour of people in society
       • cience isn't there to tell us why something comes into being but to explain how things relate to eachother using laws
       • originally wanted sociology to be a science because at the time in the 19th century it was only the sciences that gained respect
         • he wanted sociology to be respected
     • durkheim
       • patterns law and inductive reasoning
         • reality is patterned and we can observe these empirical patterns
           • it is the job of science to record these systematically and to then expalin them
         • real laws are discoverable and they will explain the patterns. just as the laws of gravity were discovered we will discover the lwas that govern society
           • inductive reasoning
         • inductive reasoning is the idea of moving from a specific set of facts to a general conclusion
       • verificationism
         • from inductive reasoning we can create a theory that wxplains our observations
         • this is the idea of continuous testing to prove yourself right
         • many observations are made and we can claim a general law
         • prove it true
         • aim to discover a cause and effect relationship
           • le to predict future events
       • quantitative data
         • helps to discover the laws to cause and effect
         • researchers should be detatched and objective
         • however, in sociology we are dealing with people and there is a danger that the researcher might contaminate the research
       • study of suicide
         • used official statistics and the comparative method
         • studied suicide to show how sociology is scienec
         • wanted to prove that individual acts had social causes
         • he looked at the suicide rates of protestants and catholics
         • suicide was higher among protestants
           • due to levels of integration and regukation
         • claimed he had discovered real law: that levels of integration impacts suicide

3. could be a science

   • popper
     • fallacy of induction
       • we should reject verificationism due to the fallacy of induction.
       • o explain the fallacy of induction he uses the analogy of swans. if you observe a large number of swans and make the generalisation that all swans are white. however, we can observe as many swans as we like but we cannot prove that all swans are white as a single black swan will destroy the theory
         • this is why we can only support a theory
     • falsification
       • falsification is the idea that we should aim to prove urselves wrong through tests and only once we can say that there is no evidence that we are wrong can we support our hypothesis.
       • a good theory stands up to all attempts to disprove it and that it is bold and attempts to explain a lot.
       • stands up to all tests to disprove it
     • the truth
       • all knowledge is capabl of refutation and there can never be absolute proof that knowledge is true
       • a good theory withstands attempts to falsify
     • implications for sociology
       • sociology is unscientific because its theories cannot be falsified because most are meta narratives
         • marxism cannot be falsified because it relies on the idea that revolution will come. it is true if revolution doesn't happen as it is a prediction that it will happen at some point. also it is true if a proletariate revolution does hapen
       • sometimes it can be scientific because it produces hypotheses which can be tested
         • ford falsified her hypothesis that comprehensive schools would produce social class mixing
       • however, he also thinks that meta narratives are not useless as they can be tested someday

4. we should not want to be a science

   • khun
     • the paradigm
       • this is a basic framework of assumptions, principles, methods and techniques
       • it is a world view
         • for example chemistry and the periodic table
           • it is a base point and all information, tests, experiments are built off of it
       • it is a set of norms and scientisist come to accept the paradigm uncritically due to their socialisation
       • a science cannot exist without a shared paradigm
     • normal science
       • most of the time the paradigm is unquestioned
       • normal science s where the scientists puzzle solve and the paradigm defines the questions they ask
       • the good thing about a paradigm is that it allows scientists to agree on the basics and flesh out the paradigm
     • scientific revolutions
       • sometimes scientists find things contrary to the paradigm
         • as the anomalies accumulate the paradigm declines
       • cience enters a period of crisis
       • scientists formulate rival paradigms and this si the start of the revolution
         • owever khnun says rival paradigms are incommesurable- two competing paradigms cannot be judged at the same time to decide which one is best
           • to shift from one paradigm to another means a hige shift in mindset
       • one paradigm will eventuall win. the new paradigms are ususally favoured by young scientists
     • implications for sociology
       • sociology is pre-paradigmatic meaning that it has not yet been the formulation of a paradigm. it is characterised by competing ideas and there is no agreement on the fundamentals
       • it could only become a science if the disagreements were resilves
       • however, postmodernists would say that paradigms may not be desirable in sociology as the seem like meta narratives- a dominat view
       • we should not want to be a science as science comes with elitism and it is a closed community with no room for change

5. not a science

   • interpretivism
     • weber
       • the subject matter of sociology
         • sociology is the study of social action and we can only understand this by interpreting the meanings of actors
         • sociology is about observational meaning
         • sociology is not a science because it studies human meanings not cause and effect
         • use non scientific methods
         • there is a difference between the natural sciences and sociology
           • natural sciences
             • studies matter with no consciousness
           • sociology
             • studies people with consciousness
         • people have free will
       • verstehen and qualitative research
         • we must put ourselves in the place of the actor to grasp their meanings
           • cannot be objective like science is
         • this is why they favour qualitative methods
     • interpretivism and suicide
       • douglas
         • ejects the positivist view of suicide
         • to study suicide we must uncover its meanings
         • official statistics are social constructs resulting from how the coroner view the suicide
         • we should look at the actors meanings
       • atkinson
         • agrees that official statistics are socially constructed
         • we can never knwo the real rate of suicide because we will never know the meanigs
         • the only thing we can study is the way the living make sense of the deaths and how the coroner classifies them
   • postmodernism
     • argue against scientific sociology
       • natural science is a meta narrative
     • there are many different truths, a scientific appraoch is dangerous because it claims a monopoly
       • this means sociology would form a domination
         • e.g. marxism though it had found a scientific truth about the ideal society but th esoviet union used it as a way to justify coercion

6. why would be want to be a science

   • dangers of science
     • science is fundamentally subjective due to funding
     • science can cause harm
       • military harm
         • nuclear attacks
           • syria
       • medical harm
         • flydemide
         • anti-biotic resistance
       • political harm
         • nazi technology