Is Sociology a ScienceEssay Preview: Is Sociology a ScienceReport this essayThere are many arguments for and against sociology being classed as a science. Using the views of Popper, Kuhn, Bhaskar and many others I am going to be examining if it is or is not a science.
Many researchers argue that the methods of the natural sciences are inappropriate for the study of society. This is because there are too many variables in society that can change and cannot be controlled. One of the Fathers of sociology Emile Durkheim published a book called the rules of sociological method. This was a book outlining the logic needed for sociology to become a science. His first and the most important rule was that social facts should be considered as things, if they are treated as things they can be seen like objects and therefore processes of the natural world. Meaning we can see society as a science through the objectification of institutions. Durkheim therefore argued from an inductive point of view, that theories come from evidence, the gathering of data and social facts. A researcher called Karl Popper argued from a deductive point of view, he said that it starts with theory and then uses evidence and data to test if it is valid or not, he says this is the only way that a science can proceed. He also came up with the term falsification. This is a term which means you try to prove something right by saying what it is not. He said that this term can be applied to natural sciences because they have behaviours and can be controlled where as this cannot be used in sociology because you can only falsify in closed systems. Although he argues that sociology is not a science he has no objection to the methodologies of natural sciences being applied to sociology, theories of human behaviour simply open to the possibility of falsification. But her argues that theories that survive falsification tests are not true they have just not been falsified, but there is a major criticism to his theory. It is that although in a closed system laboratory you can test and control temperature, matter and pressure. But you can not apply human societies to this system because you have no control over the society because it is an open system; therefore it is hard to see how a theory can be falsified in the first place.
But another researcher further critiques Poppers and Durkheims theory by arguing that the way that science has developed holds little relationship to conventional means of scientific method. He developed something called paradigms which scientists work in. This is a set of values, beliefs, ideas and assumptions about their research and is not questioned until there is a massive amount of evidence against them. These paradigms identify appropriate methods of studying the world and specify what questions to ask and how to answer them. But these paradigms restrict what can be researched as normal science operates inside the confines of a paradigm. Thomas Kuhn also rejects the conventional view of that science is built up
In reality, we must build our own paradigms. The way in which the modern world has evolved in our present day demonstrates that it will continue to evolve. Scientific research, even at an early stage of its growth, can take millions of years to develop and is a necessary part of the whole process of the evolution of civilization. A modern world can only exist if we build our own paradigm. But scientists and mathematicians and all those who research them, have been building that paradigm for over 2 billion years.
Even though the classical world has not changed as recently as 20 years ago, the rise and fall of an ancient, ancient civilization in our current world is a very interesting and complex matter.
What are a Paradigm?
There are many different paradigms of science that are being proposed and we can already see that these paradigms can only be developed by researchers.
Here is an example from a previous book I have just written that will help further the subject…
The first paradigm of science is a paradigm that is based on what we have observed before, so that our expectations and concepts will become accurate and sound. This can be achieved by training or by the use of new technologies such as the Internet. It can extend a long-standing theoretical framework without creating new assumptions that go beyond what we can easily understand or understand previously.
The model of classical social science (including the history of mankind) that explains how societies fit together (not the models of social sciences) is called a Paradigm Theory. This is an ancient model that allows individuals to formulate their own concepts within a framework.
This has led some (the New York Times) to question some of the most recent theories that were originally developed by this paradigm. However, there is not a single known paradigm that has been developed that does not use this same framework.
Another paradigm, the “biomedical paradigm”, is now being considered for the use of new technologies such as genome sequencing, drug discovery, bioinformatics, computational medicine and epidemiology. It is considered the most fundamental paradigm of science.
If the paradigms of these paradigms are being accepted by the general public, the future possibilities for the development and use of the rest of civilization will not be limited only to this one paradigm alone. We can find out more about all three paradigms in the article below and at that point we will not just accept one as a science but make good on our commitments to the others.
Myth 1: ‘Science is scientific and it works. The only real science is the best.’
Myth 2: ‘No more questions on morality. Science is science’
There are many, many people that accept the ideas presented on those premises, not just those that claim to be believers in a supernatural entity that is not true.
The key to understanding this paradigm is to