Evolution of sociology owes much to the science than any other branch of knowledge. Sociology started as a science of human societies and their problems. Science and scientific methodology have profound impact on sociological endeavor from the birth of youngest social child of the science i.e. sociology. In order to keep sociology away from philosophical speculations, religious commentaries and commonsense observations, classical sociologists or more precisely positivists relentlessly tried to establish it as a scientific discipline so much so that the founder, August Comte declared sociology as the queen of sciences.
David Émile Durkheim became one of the earlier proponents to consolidate the emerging ideas and put the foundation of sociology as a scientific discipline. He argued that much like natural sciences which deal with the discovery of laws of nature, sociology is a scientific discipline which deals with the discovery of laws of social life. He was firm believer that these laws of society can be discovered and used in the betterment of human conditions.
According to Max Weber, sociology is a science which attempts the interpretive understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a causal explanation of its course and effects. In "action" is included all human behaviour when and insofar as the acting individual attaches a subjective meaning to it. Action is social insofar as, by virtue of the subjective meaning attached to it by the acting individual (or individuals), it takes account of the behaviour of others and is thereby oriented in its course.
But later sociologists started questioning the scientific status of sociology which was so whole heartily accepted by the classical thinkers. This became one the most ferociously debated topic in the history of evolution of the discipline.
Walter L. Wallace's Four sources of knowledge are
- Authoritarian – from the position of a parent or king
- Mystical – linked to a religious experience
- Logical – rational e.g., mathematics
- Scientific method – having a hypotheses and testing it rigorously
Although philosophy and mathematics may be true knowledge but not necessarily linked to the real world. Science, on the other hand allows others to repeat the method. The scientific findings can be replicated through experimentation universally. So, Wallace argues, it gives scientific method a claim to superiority. As discussed above, not everyone is having same opinion about sociology being tagged as science. In fact, different schools of thought have been established to support their own viewpoint about what sociology means and why should sociology be science or not.
Positivists believe that science can explain the universe. They use hypo-deductive reasoning to test their beliefs. This is when scientists present a theory and invite others to prove them wrong. It is based on the concept that nothing can be proven to be 100% true but theories can be proven false. I would never be able to prove that I am going to live forever but others could quite easily prove that I won’t by killing me. It is reasoned that if a theory cannot be proven wrong it has an increased likelihood of being correct/true (but we will never be 100% sure) According to positivists, for theories to be scientific they must be testable/falsifiable. Positivists believe that a scientifically backed theory is far more valid than one that is not backed up with hard evidence. Positivists see the world as being full of concrete testable realities and use quantitative methods to support their theories.
Interpretivists are very skeptical about the positivists’ scientific claims. They see the world as a largely socially constructed place. Reality as we understand it only exists because of agreed shared concepts. Knowledge itself is whatever we agree it to be. For example, certain kind of greetings in particular community might be offensive in other! Context is, therefore, a hugely important aspect of knowledge itself and is really important when we are trying to understand/interpret a situation. Interpretivists don’t think that scientific methodology is useful to the study of human interactions or sociology in general. They see it as invalid because it often removes the context or interferes in some way with the subject matter. Interpretivists use qualitative research techniques such as ethnographic techniques, observations and unstructured interviews.
But even amongst positivists there is no agreement as to whether a theoretical subject such as sociology should be considered to be truly scientific. An examination of what constitutes a science might make things clearer! Science must have testable concepts rely on accurate gathering of information to get reliable measurable data be able to make generalizations based on the research conducted to establish universal laws be objective (unbiased) based on practical investigations empirical evidence.
What is Science?
Generally accepted definition of science is that it is organized body of knowledge which is empirical, testable, objective, cumulative and theoretical. Here, empirical means knowledge through sense i.e. tested physically. Testable implies that it can be verified or refuted. Falsification is the most important characteristic as far as Karl Popper is concerned. ‘Being theoretical’ means that it can predict the relationship between given variables in a certain condition. Science is cumulative i.e., both the evolution of theories and collection of data are cumulative. Theories change and become more complex over time. Objective knowledge is one which is pursued without fear and favor i.e. without value judgment.
Sociology cannot use laboratory experiments to test theories. It cannot isolate the variables in a situation but this is true of cosmology, meteorology and animal behaviour which are also open systems. This does not stop theories being tested by observation. Sociologists claim that comparative methods allow testing of a result (triangulation). Sociology can predict how groups of people will react. The proposition of patterns is something that can be tested. Also, there are doubts about objectivity in sociological inquiry.
Karl Popper says that for a subject to be scientific it must be testable using hypo-deductive reasoning It must have testable concepts that could be proven wrong using scientific methodology ( falsified ) You must, therefore, be able to isolate an independent variable and establish causal links between it and its consequences. Thomas Kuhn uses the concept of ideological paradigms to explain why scientists are in not infallible. He points out that all science operates under an ideological paradigm. This is a fixed belief or set of beliefs that most of the community accept to be true and, therefore, interpret all scientific findings from that viewpoint. Currently a useful paradigm is the theory of evolution. It is a useful practice and it is hard to imagine how a system would work without such agreement but it is arrogant and foolish to forget that the initial premise is a theory and may be wrong as historically it has been many times. But Kuhn also says for a subject to really be considered a science it should at least have a prevailing paradigm, an overriding belief system that most of its practitioners accept.
It is already obvious that much Sociological research would struggle to meet all of these criteria.
Perspectives
Positivism in Sociology
Positivists feel that it is valid to use scientific methods despite the fact that the independent variable can rarely be fully isolated They think that the methodology itself is still useful and is the most reliable tool in searching for Knowledge itself, as far as they are concerned, is a concrete reality that can be measured and tested They feel that there is such a thing as a social fact
Interactionism in Sociology
Integrationists do not agree that there is such a thing as a social fact in the same sense that positivists view it They do not think knowledge itself is concrete or testable just a shared reality Consequently, it is fairly immaterial whether sociology meets the criteria of science They question the validity of science and feel that the experimental process itself often contaminates what it is meant to be learning about
Science and the modern world - The postmodernist criticism
By claiming a monopoly on explanation, scientists have replaced priests as the sources of truth. There are many questions that are not asked and cannot be answered by science. What is life for? What is justice? Are we responsible for other people? By posing as having an answer for everything science is cheapening life
Sociology can’t and shouldn't be a science
The ideas of Schutz, Billig and Bauman
Durkheim thought society was like a building with hidden structure that could be uncovered. But if we are actors who continually construct society by the meanings we give to actions and explanations of behavior then the detached approach of the scientist is both inappropriate and impossible
Why does it matter if Sociology is a science?
To ensure prestige so the subject can gain funding for teaching and research at universities To give weight to its findings so that they have the authority by being backed by scientific method To give protections: Sociology has been threatened in different countries (from the Prussian civil servants to Robert Mugabe and Margaret Thatcher) as a source of subjective political criticism
Conclusion
Sociology wanted to be seen as a science for status. Scientists have pointed to aspects of sociology and said that it can’t meet all the criteria. Positivists believe by rigorous research design (with triangulation) there can be a social science. Science itself does not meet all the criteria of being scientific! Interactionists think the debate itself is stuck in an age of outdated notions that there is a fixed, knowable world out there to be discovered. There are many means of discovery of which science is only one.
No comments:
Post a Comment