Download Sociology and science - The Richmond Philosophy Pages

Sociology and science
Key Points
• Following the Scientific Revolution in the 17th century, the natural
sciences had managed by the 19th century to increase our control
of nature and produce technology that improved people’s living
standards.
• For example, advances in engineering, transportation, medicine.
• Positivist sociologists, like Durkheim believed they could copy the
success of science and produce a science of society, which could
be used to get rid of problems such as poverty, injustice and
conflict.
Key points
• Positivists believe that sociology is a science and that sociologists
should seek to uncover the social laws or facts (things that are
objectively true) that they believe explain human behaviour.
• They do this by using the logic and methods of the natural sciences.
• The scientific method begins with the scientist making observations.
These are measurements and the data recorded are objective (i.e.
not a matter of opinion or a reflection of what the scientist wants).
Key points
• They then form a hypothesis to explain what’s been
observed (e.g. the movement of planets).
• Then they devise an experiment or make a prediction to test
the hypothesis.
• Depending on the outcome, the theory (explanation set out
in the hypothesis) is then tentatively accepted or rejected.
Key points
• This method means that experiment can be replicated by
other scientists and the theory can be reconfirmed.
• The theory aims to identify a law. In science this is a
universally applicable generalisation e.g. H20 freezes at 0⁰C
or objects fall to the ground when released (in normal
conditions).
• The natural sciences explain things in terms of laws (of
nature).
Key Points
• What social law did Durkheim identify in his study of
suicide?
• Suicide rates always rise when there is too much or too little
social integration or moral regulation
Key Points
• Positivist sociologists use methods such as structured
interviews, questionnaires and official statistics which they
regard as scientific.
• In what way could these methods be seen as scientific?
• The researcher remains detached
• They are reliable.
Key Points
• Positivist sociologists use the hypothetico-deductive model
which stems from the natural sciences. This stresses that
scientific discovery should go through a number of stages.
• Stage 1 – An observation is made of social phenomena
(occurrences) such as suicide
• Stage 2 – A hypothesis explaining the phenomena is
established.
Key points
• Stage 3 – Evidence is collected in a systematic, objective and
reliable fashion to work out if the hypothesis is true or false.
• Stage 4 – If enough data supports the hypothesis then it
becomes a theory and eventually a scientific or social law.
Problems
• Many sociologists have criticised positivism because it has
failed to identify ‘scientific’ laws (facts that can’t be
disputed), despite a century of effort.
Karl Popper (The Logic of Scientific Discovery
1934/1959) – philosopher of science
• Popper criticises positivists for employing the hypothetico
deductive model. He argues that it is not logical because
instead of looking for evidence which falsifies a hypothesis it
is based on collecting evidence that confirms the hypothesis.
• This is wrong, scientists should look for evidence that proves
the hypothesis absolutely wrong and forces them to look
elsewhere.
Karl Popper – philosopher of science
• Popper argued that there is no such thing as absolute truth
(that is undisputable). At best, we can only achieve partial
truth as all knowledge is provisional and temporary.
• This is because no matter how many times an experiment is
conducted or a phenomenon is observed, the scientist can
never be sure the same results will be obtained in the future.
Karl Popper – philosopher of science
• Popper illustrates this with the hypothesis ‘swans are always
white.’ He notes many positivists would be happy to confirm
this if they observed 999 swans as white. It would become a
scientific fact and probably no further observations would be
done.
• Popper sees this as bad science because there is always the
possibility that a black swan could come along and prove the
‘fact’ wrong.
Karl Popper – philosopher of science
• Popper argues we can never be conclusively right, we can
only be conclusively wrong.
• He argues that good science is about being rigorously
sceptical and he proposed that scientific research methods
should be based on the ‘principle of falsification.’
• Scientific knowledge is that which survives after rigorous
testing but even then contradictory evidence could come up
that proves it wrong. So we can never have real scientific
truth.
Karl Popper – philosopher of science
• Popper was sceptical about the idea of sociology being a
science since he argued that it was too theoretical and not
engaged in enough testing or research.
Paul Feyerabend (Against Method, 1975) – criticises
Popper and Positivists
• He argues that both Popper and positivists wrongly portray
the scientific method as being a coldly rational and logical
process.
• He argues that actually many scientists cut corners – they
don’t do what they say they do.
Paul Feyerabend – criticises Popper and
Positivists
• Science is actually haphazard – there is no logic to science –
the rule tends to be ‘anything goes’ with individual scientists
following their own rules that are nothing like textbook
models.
Scientific Realism
• Realists argue that the definition of science used by
positivism is inadequate because of its emphasis on finding
an observable cause and effect.
• Andrew Sayer (Method in Social Science, 1984 and Realism
and Social Science, 2000) argues that many sciences theorize
about the existence of phenomena which are difficult or
impossible to observe, detect and therefore predict.
Scientific Realism
• Examples of open sciences – sciences concerned with things we
cannot see or observe directly include physics, seismology,
meteorology and astronomy. Sayer argues that open sciences are
often unable to predict how the phenomena they are studying will
behave eg scientist cannot predict when an earthquake will occur so
controlling variables is impossible.
• In other words, sciences cannot really set up experiments or make
predictions in ways that will allow the scientist to have all of the
factors under their control.
Scientific Realism
• From a Realist position, sociology can be seen as scientific
because it is largely concerned with studying underlying social
structures and processes, which are largely unobservable but can
be measured by examining their effects.
• So for example social class as a social and economic force cannot
be observed but its effects on social behaviour can be measured.
In this sense sociology is an open science.
Scientific Realism
• How do you think that a sociologist studying the effects of
class on voting patterns could measure class?
• How do you think a sociologist studying the effects of social
class on educational achievement could measure it?
Science and paradigms – Thomas Kuhn
• Thomas Kuhn (1962) – argues that scientists are not as open
minded as positivists claim.
• He rejects the idea that they are constantly making and
testing hypotheses, arguing instead that they are concerned
mainly with solving problems defined as important by other
scientists.
Science and paradigms – Thomas Kuhn
• Scientists generally accept what earlier generation scientists
have said about what the natural world is like. Instead of
questioning these assumptions, they take these assumptions
as correct and work within a particular paradigmatic context.
Science and paradigms – Thomas Kuhn
• Dominant paradigms which shape the way scientists understand and
view the world, tell them what their priorities should be, the key
questions are, what what counts as legitimate evidence, how to
approach specific problems and what scientific method to adopt.
• Kuhn argues that scientific progress occurs when as time passes more
and more evidence which does not fit the paradigm appears. In the
end contradictory evidence is so overwhelming that a ‘scientific
revolution’ occurs and a new paradigm is established.
Science and paradigms – Thomas Kuhn
• Example Galileo – challenged dominant paradigm in early
astronomy which stated that the earth was the centre of the
universe and the sun revolved around it. Scientists had
simply accepted this as truth and did not test it
• When Galileo presented evidence to the contrary suggesting
that actually the earth actually revolved around the sun he
was imprisoned and his data suppressed.
Is Sociology a science using Kuhn’s ideas?
• If you apply Kuhn’s ideas to the discipline of sociology do
you think he would see it as a science?
• Kuhn’s ideas would suggest that sociology is not a science
because it is doubtful if there has been one paradigm
dominant at any one time.
• Sociology has long been characterised by competing theories
and even within these there is disagreement.
Interpretivism and science
• What do you think Interpretivists would argue about
whether sociology is a science and why?
• Interpretivists do not believe that sociology is a science.
Interpretivists and science
• You cannot experiment and test on human beings as you can
on natural matter like plants in a laboratory.
• Humans are active conscious beings, not static objects, who
are aware of what is going on around them, they react to it
in different ways and behaviour cannot be predicted in lawlike ways.
Interpretivism and science
• The focus of sociological research should not be on
identifying social facts or laws but it should be on
understanding the interpretations and meanings that
individuals attach to particular social interactions.
• Interpretivists favour research methods that help sociologists
to understand why people behave as they do, the meanings
behind social action. They support the use of qualitative
ethnographic methods and emphasise Verstehen and
validity.
Interpretivism and science
• Positivist scientific methods are criticized as they inevitably
result in the sociologist’s view of the world being imposed on
the research subjects.
Postmodernism and science
• Postmodernists reject the view that there exists any absolute
and universal truth or knowledge. As science is built on this
idea they reject it.
• They especially criticise science because it claims to be
objective but they argue that in reality scientific knowledge
is simply controlled by powerful groups who use science to
control our way of thinking.
Postmodernism and science
• Postmodernists argue that Positivists should abandon their
search for ultimate truths because there is no such thing.
• They support a more pluralistic approach to scientific
enquiry supporting the use of a range of different research
methods to capture and analyse the many different
interpretations of reality that postmodernists claim are
found in postmodern society.