The positivists whilst trying to be scientific loose validity because humans are not unconscious they have motivations and closed questions and non-participant observations are not going to get those validly. Realists alternatively argue that science and sociology can work together because of the controls on research that both use; open and closed systems.
However if like the interpretivists argue society is a creation of shared meanings Garfinkel and has no objective reality and neither does social order then it may not be possible to study society objective because it is not an objective phenomena.
Contextually at the time, statistics were not as organised so no one would even realise he missed them out. For instance science is concerned with phenomenon which do not have consciousness for instance water boiling at degrees does not decide to, it just does.
Some of the physical sciences too like astronomy cannot be put to laboratory test, but nobody can deny that it is science.
With patience and persistence I believe it can be done. It does not possess the instruments like the microscope and the thermometer to measure human behaviour.
Problems like degrading environment and getting MRSA or other super drug resistant bugs in us were not concerns years ago, the risks created in society are greater now because of science. Man has his own prejudice and bias. For instance if you believe that society is an external objective phenomena with structures and determinism and therefore cause and effect it could be possible that sociology could be a science if it maintained falsifiability and objectivity.
As well as scientist, sociologist collects data as evidence in order to verify a theory. However a criticism of this perspective from the realists is that both the interpretivists and the positivists ideas of whether sociology should be a science are wrong.
But the idea I mentioned above kind of presupposes that a factory worker who can barely read and write should be eligible for the same job, living, and payment conditions as, for example, the man who has made a project and built the factory he works for. To explain a paradigm is a set of values and beliefs that research can be conducted under, for instance valuing the objective study of phenomenon in the world rather than the subjective opinion based study of the world, they want conscience and controlled research with little confounding variables.
The generalization which sociologists make are often in the nature of statement, representing trends or tendency statements.
I believe it can give us the tools to begin dissecting the rigidness and walls between us—that is, our fixed opinions which are our prisons.
No, I think sociology concepts become part of the culture and get distorted, misused, or overused and there is reaction against them. If science is narrowly defined as in the case of Popper, it is very difficult for sociology to meet the expectation and standard demanded. Kuhn argues that although there are many paradigms or perspective in sociology such as positivism, phenomenologist and realism, there is a lack of consensus within a particular perspective.
For instance the interpretivists have claimed that science cannot study the means and motivations because they are unobservable, and the positivists only study the observable. For instance the positivist methods always aim to be scientific, they use detatched methods like non-participant observation and structured interviews, that they they do not let any of their views onto their research.
Science by being objective from the paradigm that this is the best thing, restricts the information it can collect. The controversy as to the scientific or otherwise nature of sociology has not been without benefit to sociology.
It is very difficult that sociologists may visualise abstract and subjective things like custom, attitude etc.
Science by being objective from the paradigm that this is the best thing, restricts the information it can collect. It is further argued that sociology is not a science because it cannot measure its subject matter.
We might normally spend a few days, or even an entire semester, studying some of these concepts. Therefore, Weber argues that sociology should not adopt the methods of science. If we do that then sociology may one day save the world.
And only in this sense. By analyzing suicide statistics, Durkheim found causal and correlation relationship between external social forces with suicide, as in fact the law governing suicide rate.
Our audiences may not be as receptive to sociological ideas as this class of self-selected and motivated learners. They are equal in what concerns the law.
As science grows, it is not unlikely that a larger number of social problems may be decided by laboratory tests. Like it or not, we all need and depend on each other as well as other living organisms to survive. These topics have been covered in many previous blog posts so I will just briefly explain the main points that we discussed with each.
However it is believed sociology cannot be proved wrong. Therefore sociology should be a science and can be because it can be objective and falsifiable.
Feminist claimed that science is a male world where women have always been exploited or excluded. However there is some criticism particularly from the positivists who believe that sociology should be a science and it in fact can be a science because it can be objective and it can be falsified.Can and should sociology be a science?
Science is defined as knowledge that is certain, gained by systematic study through observation and experimentation.
Examples of. Sociology is studied as a social science; however its status as a science may be questioned when compared to how scientists study the natural world. In order to determine whether or not sociology is a true science it is first necessary to make comparisons between the examinations carried out by both natural scientists and sociologists and discuss some of the theories and perspectives around the topic.
This essay has two parts, can sociology be a science meaning what qualities can sociology and science share leading to sociology being classed as a science, and two, should sociology be a science depending on what perspective sociological theory takes, looking what society actually is and whether you should study it scientifically.
Realists do not totally overrule the fact that sociology can be called a social science and they may argue that sociology could be based on the same principles as natural science. Ray Pawson () described the view of ‘two sociologies’ as a ‘methodological myth’.
Can sociologists study society in the same way that scientists study the natural world? Sociologists study society as a 'social science' however the status of sociology as a science is easily questionable when compared to how acknowledged scientists study the natural world.
Sociology as a Science Essay - Sociology emerged in the eighteenth century after a period of intense cultural, social and economic changes. As people began to try to understand these changes, there came a period called the Enlightenment.Download