hi there and welcome to this a level sociology topic video on the question of whether sociology is a science some students are scared of this question either because one of the reasons they chose sociology was because they wanted to get away from science or because it seems a rather philosophical question and some resources overcomplicate it a bit so let's break this down into a few clear chunks first we can't determine whether sociology is a science or not without knowing what a science is not everyone agrees about what constitutes a science but here are some thoughts
it's an organized systematic and cumulative pursuit of knowledge in which hypotheses are rigorously tested it is often suggested that scientists seek proof that their research is based on empiricism gaining knowledge through observing it and experiencing it themselves rather than just through theorizing as such science is said to be objective and neutral scientists talk about the scientific method which goes something like this pose a question you conduct some background research and then create a hypothesis test that hypothesis with experiments analyze the data and reach a conclusion these conclusions are then and results are peer reviewed and
then published so that's stage one what is science now we need to consider whether sociology is like this it is positivist sociologists who argue that it is more than it should be they say that it is possible to establish objective social facts by using scientific research methods the thorough collection of empirical evidence they argue that good sociology does follow this scientific method that we've just outlined they identify a social problem or question they formulate a formulator hypothesis and that's based on research well they rarely if ever use laboratory experiments they do prefer what they consider
to be reliable methods that produce quantitative data which they can analyze and that allow them to reach conclusions and those conclusions are peer-reviewed and published in academic journals so sociologists like compton durkheim were of this view durkheim's famous study on suicide was in part at least designed to establish that sociology was indeed a science and one that could explain all human behavior he approached the topic like a natural scientist testing his hypothesis that suicide rates were linked to levels of social control or social cohesion against a number of variables such as religious belief durkheim did
reach conclusions supporting his hypothesis and published them in a very influential essay however his methods have been extensively criticized um even uh positivists or the positivists have criticized durkheim's study they've asked about how we can really operationalize concepts like social cohesion and social control that means how can you measure them if you're going to produce quantitative data you have to somehow measure these things and also questions about the reliability of his suicide statistics this raises the suggestion that perhaps sociology should be a science but rarely is karl popper thought that positive is sociology generally failed
to be scientific that is karl popper by the way not prince philip popper argues that scientific reasoning is deductive where sociologists tend to use inductive reasoning that is popper says that scientists engage in falsification they try to prove that their hypothesis is false and if they cannot then it's the best hypothesis we have until future research inductive reasoning is trying to find evidence to prove that hypothesis is true and he argues that this is what sociologists tend to do he uses the analogy of the black swan if you had a hypothesis that all swans were
white using inductive reasoning you would find lots of evidence to prove your hypothesis true everywhere it's one that you see but if you find one blacks one you've proved it false popper argues that some sociological concepts cannot be falsified and therefore are not scientific concept he particularly criticizes marxism for this how could we falsify a concept like false class consciousness if you imagine an interview do you think you're being exploited by the bourgeoisie no ah that's because of false class consciousness no it's not well you would say that because of false class consciousness etc okay
so moving on to the interpretivists then social action theorists tend to have a completely different view of what sociology should be like compared with positivists they're not seeking out universal laws or indeed establishing social facts they're interested in what people think and how they feel and they know that people are not like chemicals they have agency if you put potassium in water scientists can accurately predict how it will react but if you choose to label a school pupil as a high achiever we can observe how some children react in a particular situation we can't generalize
or predict the interesting thing to study then is how people interpret situations and what they think and feel this is micro sociology as opposed to macro action as opposed to structure they also argue that sociology cannot establish social facts because concepts and institutions institutions are in fact socially constructed we mentioned um durkheim's famous study on suicide earlier interpretivist criticisms of durkheim question whether you can really quantify suicide because it is a social construction rather than a social fact the statistics that you can use are the product of coroner's reports and each incident is individual each
means something different to the people who were involved a lot of textbooks now bring realism into this essay too now this isn't the same as the realism you've learned in about in relation to crime and deviance so don't try and make that link that link isn't there this is another well perhaps it is a science point it comes from andrew sayer and it's the idea that there are different types of science ones that are closed or ones that are open something like chemistry is a closed science it's possible to test how one thing reacts to
another by controlling the other variables but meteorology is also a science and as weather forecasters are always telling us we can't make certain predictions about what will happen we can model likely developments but sometimes it snows when nobody was expecting it or everyone's expecting rain and it's fine all day because there are so many variables at work meteorologists are not able to control them the same is true with social science because we can't establish precise laws and predictions that will always be the case does not mean that we can't carry out valuable research establish trends
and correlations nor does it stop social science from being science oh and just to really confuse us there's the question of whether science is a science or at least whether science really meets the criteria we set for it earlier in the essay thomas kuhn points out that science is not really entirely objective it works within what he calls paradigms there are a set of assumptions about the world and science and mainstream science operates within those assumptions within that paradigm science that challenges that is not welcomed like papa might suggest that it would be as a
form of falsification but instead it is sidelined and assumed to be wrong if such radical science can eventually break through into the mainstream then there is a paradigm shift so for example establishing that the earth goes around the sun rather than the other way around in this way kuhn suggests that sociology is a young science that is yet to find a unifying paradigm if all sociology was functionalist for example it would then behave like a science with the other perspectives rejected until there was a future paradigm shift others point out that science is funded and
who funds the research might impact their conclusions which challenges the idea that science is always neutral and objective so for example research funded by oil companies has tended to be less sure of man-made global warming than all of the other research on that subject post-modernists go further and criticize the very concept of science science is the ultimate meta-narrative just a big story that seeks to explain everything ultimately it's just that a story according to post-modernists other ideas and belief systems are available and people can pick and mix those that work for them this can provide
you with something in the way of a conclusion although you should also look to directly answer the question whatever precise question you've been asked and you might also want to challenge the post modern view rather than give them the last word not sure i'd want to go to a post-modern doctor if i was feeling unwell just a quick look at some of the sort of questions you could be asked on this question um on this subject um evaluate the view that sociology is a science might just get that as a straightforward essay could come up
as a ten marker something like outline and explain two criticisms of the view that sociology is a science or two ways in which it might be um and then there are related topics such as evaluate the view that sociology cannot be value free or questions about objectivity and subjectivity where a lot of this same content could be used i hope that's been useful keep a look out for more revision videos and resources from tutatu and best of luck with your exams thanks for thanks for listening
