...Sociology cannot and should not be a science.’ To what extent do sociological arguments and evidence support this view? (33marks) There are disagreements between sociologists as to whether sociology is considered to be a science. Some suggest that there is no way that sociology could be a science. For example, Popper believes that sociology is not a science, as inductive reasoning doesn’t create science. Therefore Popper he proposed that scientific research methods should be based on the principle of falsification, that is, instead of looking for evidence to prove a hypothesis right, scientists should look for evidence that proves it false. As sociology never makes claims that can be falsified, it’s not therefore a science. However, Popper has been criticized by Kaplan, who argues that many scientific discoveries are made by accident, which inspires luck to play a crucial role in scientific research. Moreover, many scientists make false starts or collect data that takes them up blind alleys before they get back on track. Also, Feyerabend argues that in reality there is no logic to science as individualist scientists follow their own rules, which often do not resemble textbook models. Thus, Poppers views on sociology not being a science are inaccurate, due to his understanding of what science is. Popper was only mainly concerned with the logic of science, whereas Kuhn argued that scientists work within conceptual paradigm that strongly influences the way in which they...
Words: 790 - Pages: 4
...Assess the view that Sociology can and should be seen as a Science In this essay it will assess the view that sociology can and should be seen as a science. It will provide you with examples throughout. Sociology is seen as science by some, this is because they believe it is very similar to the natural sciences, much like the natural sciences, hypothesis’ can be made and facts can be a result by collecting data or carrying out experiments. Sociology is really considered to be a social science like many other subjects. Sociologists in the 19th century believed that using the rules and logic of scientific methods could be used to test sociology the same way as it does in the natural sciences. Sciences are considered to be chemistry, biology, and physics; this is because these subjects all use explanations and reasons throughout the work. Before sociology is to be named worthy of being a science, the meaning of science is to find ways of understanding the world and explaining it. When studying in science scientific methods are used, the process starts with something being observed, and then a hypothesis is made to give a possible relationship between the events being studied and an experiment or research to prove or disprove the hypothesis is done and finally, an evaluation is made and a conclusion if proven correct, or a new hypothesis is created to test again. Many believe that sociology does this because it too also tries to explain and understand the social world. Positivists...
Words: 829 - Pages: 4
...Assess the Extent to which sociology could be seen as a science (33 marks) Science is characterised by five components. These are as follows. Empirical means we can count and measure information and testable is defined as experiments being able to be repeated and retested, therefore seen as more reliable. The theoretical means science seeks out causal relationships and doesn’t rely on descriptions but also to explain. Cumulative means it builds on previous knowledge and moves our understanding of the world forwards. Lastly, the objective details that personal feelings, prejudices etc have no place in science. It basically has to be unbiased. It is debated as to whether sociology fits into this definition, with strong divides in the for and against. One argument presented as to why sociology is a science comes from Positivists. Positivists use quantitative data and methods such as questionnaires in order to distinguish any trends, patterns or correlations in an investigation. By adopting the methods of natural sciences they establish sociology as a real science. Comte argued that it should be based on the methodology of the natural sciences. This is the approach that positivists take however, there comes a difficulty with applying these measures to the subject. In science the aim is to achieve the same and correct answer each time the experiment is done, and this shows reliability and validity in whatever claims that are trying to be made. If an anomaly appears steps are taken...
Words: 1181 - Pages: 5
...Sociology is and should be a science Karl Popper- If academic subjects want to be called a science they must undergo falsification. This means sociology would have to come up with a hypothesis; such as suicide is caused by insufficient integration and regulation. He rejects Marxism as a pseudo-science because its concepts are too abstract to be seen or measured (false class consciousness) Destructive method- Theory has loads of challenges to the hypothesis. Inductive method- Finds loads of evidence to prove self. Research process- If it should be a science it must adopt body of metholgical principles common in natural sciences: Empiricism- Must be able to prove or disprove theories with direct experience. Religion can never be proved so isn’t science. Objectivity- Conclusions should be based on available evidence and not opinions or beliefs of researcher. Controlled Experimentation- Systematic and controlled experiments where any other influence isn’t involved. Cumulative progression- Science is a march of progress, where new discoveries improve previous knowledge. Sociologists can adopt research methods that are faithful to the natural sciences, quantitative data used to reveal patterns of human behaviour, and then conclusions can be made which gives laws. Durkheim- believes sociology is the study of social acts that are external to the individuals, didn’t directly observe the social cause of suicide but did observe its effects. Not science: Interperatives Weber-...
Words: 587 - Pages: 3
...the two fields. Science and religion may finally not be at odds anymore. Instead of using science to disprove God, it should be used to grow closer to Him. God gave humanity a curious nature, and it should be used to pursue Him and understand the world He created. We now live in the era of information and science, and we must open our belief systems to these things. Science, by definition, is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (Dictionary.com). Religion and science are both ways in which we try to understand the world we live in, “but science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations” (Evolution Resources…). If the scientific method, the process by which these observations are made and evidence is collected, is the foundation for the worldview that to understand the universe, one must look only at the universe. On the other hand, religious people use supernatural entities to explain natural occurrences in this world. From this perspective, complex natural occurrences, such as the stars, point toward a Creator: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork” (Psalm 19:1, ESV Bible). Because of these contradictions in the way these two fields study the world, and what they hold as valid, they seem like polar opposites. Instead of trying to contradict one another, the two can, and should, be used to benefit...
Words: 663 - Pages: 3
...Is it dangerous for Politics to define Science? Political discourses entail following cultural and unwritten behaviors, which in most cases are driven by organizational and personal agendas, aimed at attaining particular objectives. The need to practice politics effectively has led to the emergence of political science, which covers the study of governments, political systems and process, and political policies. On the other hand, science refers to a methodical approach that is used in understanding the natural world (McLelland 1). Science is one of the most fundamental disciplines that can be relied upon in an effort to transform the society through effective decision-making. This observation arises from the fact that, science leads to the formulation of scientific theories, which are comprehensive and well-integrated set of facts. The objective of this paper is to analyze if there are any dangers to this effect. The credibility of scientific ‘facts’ arises from the construct that, the facts are repeatedly tested and accepted, thus increasing their effectiveness in making predictions on certain natural phenomena. McLelland posits, “Science is a human endeavor, which subjects it to bias, misapprehensions, and personal prejudices” (4). This argument is in line with the assumption that humans can accurately observe and measure a given phenomenon in an effort to understand the universe. However, the conclusions arrived at by humans is limited by how effective they can make sense...
Words: 916 - Pages: 4
...Is Sociology a Science? Intro: What is Science vs. what is Sociology? The term “science” refers the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Objectivity is seen as an important part of the scientific process, and involves value freedom and open-mindedness. Sociology may want to be a science due to modernity and the rise of technology. Scientists may be interested in how individual’s actions are influenced by the rise of technology and the secularisation of religion. Thus they may conclude that the only way in which they can be studied is through observations and experiments, such as lab experiments; which take place in controlled factors with controlled factors, as Popper suggests, science involves the hypothetico-deductive method to test through research. Also positivists argue that it should be a science when studying social facts. Arguably, Sociology wouldn’t want to be seen as a science, as the association with science connotes that we are dealing with emotionless electrons and atoms, as opposed to people with feelings and emotions. Thus some would disagree with the idea that objectivity that is associated with studying people within society, which science influences, as we are people and we cannot disconnect ourselves from society. For example, it is not simple to disconnect yourself when studying a rape or murder case. Positivism is the...
Words: 810 - Pages: 4
...Christine V. McLelland GSA Distinguished Earth Science Educator in Residence Reviewers and Contributors: Gary B. Lewis Director, Education and Outreach, Geological Society of America Contributing GSA Education Committee members: Rob Van der Voo University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. Keith A. Sverdrup University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wis. Mary M. Riestenberg College of Mount Saint Joseph, Cincinnati, Ohio Virginia L. Peterson Grand Valley State University, Allendale, Mich. Wendi J.W. Williams University of Arkansas, Little Rock, Ark. Sandra Rutherford Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Mich. Larissa Grawe DeSantis University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. Aida Awad Des Plaines, Ill. Stephen R. Mattox Grand Valley State University, Allendale, Mich. Steve Boyer Tacoma, Wash. Jo Laird University of New Hampshire, Durham, N.H. Cover image: A basalt dike cuts through rocks of Permain age on Wasp Head, NSW Australia. Photo by Gary B. Lewis. Table of Contents What is Science? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Scientific Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Evaluation . . . ....
Words: 6230 - Pages: 25
...April 24th, 2014 Why Creationism Should be Taught in Schools Evolution is believed to have been scientifically proven, but really it’s not. It is only a theory. If Evolution is only a theory, why is it the only theory being taught in our schools today? Creationism is another theory about how the world was created. It is just as valid as an idea as evolution, so why is only one theory being taught in our classrooms? Creationism should be taught alongside Evolution because students should be able to think on their own and decide what theory to believe. Both theories cannot be proven, so why not teach different perspectives? Evolution is not a fact, just theory and hypothesis. It is a belief. Some may even say, a faith. It might seem that people claim that creationism is religious doctrine, and it is, but evolution is just as religious as creationism. Both cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Both take faith to believe them to be true. So creationism is just as valid as Evolution. Creationism came from religious views, but not everyone believes in the same religions. Evolution is a worldwide concept that many people have come to believe but they may not been exposed to these religions. “Dr. Bergman then went on to add, ‘If schools are to be a place where students can debate important questions, it would seem that eliminating religious questions would shelter students from an important area of debate which is crucial for living a well-rounded life.’” (Edwords...
Words: 1937 - Pages: 8
...Faith vs. science. Is there a contradiction between faith in God and science? Faith in God and belief in science will never contradict if God, in fact, exists and is the Creator of the universe. If God is the Creator of the universe, and there is ample evidence that He is, then science is just knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths about His creation. If God doesn't exist, then faith and science will contradict since science is the search for facts about the cosmos. For those with faith, however, science can be one of our greatest forms of worship. Science is mankind's attempt to understand how the world works. The scientific method is one of the greatest tools to accomplish this. It starts with a question about the world. Then background research, a hypothesis or educated guess about the research, an experiment, analysis to determine if the hypothesis was correct, and the report of the results. If the hypothesis was correct, the cycle is finished. If not, another hypothesis is put forth, and testing begins again. The scientific method infers that a provable fact will be repeatable and verifiable—that other scientists will come up with the same answer if their experiment is performed in the same way. There is nothing unbiblical about the scientific method as such. God made light, matter, water, plants, animals, and humans. We honor Him when we endeavor to understand His amazing creation. We also learn more about Him, about His wisdom and power and...
Words: 712 - Pages: 3
...All throughout the history of man, religion and science have always been in conflict. Although there is conflict between science and religion, it can be theorized with the Hostility, Harmony, and Indifference Theories that have manifested from the credence of each. The Hostility Theory is a theory about the conflict of science and religion in which both sides, the religious and, the scientific; believe both sides are dangerously wrong in their approach and beliefs. People that fit this theory have very strong religious beliefs and are strongly against scientist trying to disprove their beliefs and customs. Scientists that fit this theory hate that people could believe in a higher power and believe it is their duty to disprove religion and its customs. Both believe one is operating under dangerous delusions. Religious people believe science should be more open to religious beliefs, and scientists believe religions should be more open to scientific theories. On one side of the spectrum you have a scientist, Newton, which believed in God, but on the other spectrum, Darwin believes in evolution without God or religion. Newton could explain scientifically on why something was, but would credit God for allowing him to be able to explain it. Darwin’s theory of evolution is still against religion to this day with the presumption that humans evolved from apes instead of being created by God. No single interpretive statement stands in isolation from the set of assumptions undergirding...
Words: 855 - Pages: 4
...on What is the Relation between Science and Religion William Lane Craig Examines several ways in which science and theology relate to each other. Back in 1896 the president of Cornell University Andrew Dickson White published a book entitled A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. Under White’s influence, the metaphor of “warfare” to describe the relations between science and the Christian faith became very widespread during the first half of the 20th century. The culturally dominant view in the West—even among Christians—came to be that science and Christianity are not allies in the search for truth, but adversaries. To illustrate, several years ago I had a debate with a philosopher of science at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver , Canada, on the question “Are Science and Religion Mutually Irrelevant?” When I walked onto the campus, I saw that the Christian students sponsoring the debate had advertised it with large banners and posters proclaiming “Science vs. Christianity.” The students were perpetuating the same sort of warfare mentality that Andrew Dickson White proclaimed over a hundred years ago. What has happened, however, in the second half of this century is that historians and philosophers of science have come to realize that this supposed history of warfare is a myth. As Thaxton and Pearcey point out in their recent book The Soul of Science, for over 300 years between the rise of modern science in the 1500’s and the late 1800s the relationship...
Words: 4080 - Pages: 17
...Abortion is a subject that sparks great debate there is no grey area, you are either for or against abortion. In the era that we live in today, moral standards are ever changing and decisions placed under a microscope. Abortions are becoming justified, acceptable and should be the choice of the woman holding the fetus. The reason for this choice is government makes the mistake of being involved in the choice of its individual people. As you turn on your television set and see matters of abortion being discusses, it is hard to rule out the religion, and science. These subjects will always cause friction when educating people about human life. Abortion is more than a procedure, it has psychological factors, and it has short-term and long-term effects. There are financial matters as well and those who bears the overall long-term effect, society or the individual needs to be addressed as well when speaking about abortions. The Supreme Court of the United States has been involved in highly publicized cases of abortion; Rowe v Wade, Gonzales v. Carnhart, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England, are to name a few. The Supreme Court is the highest form of court system in the United States to decide these matters. The state should allow the people having the abortions to establish their own guidelines so they can govern these laws and regulations. Sexual Education in the school systems is flawed, teachers, teach the youth about sexually transmitted diseases, and the risk of what can happen...
Words: 2882 - Pages: 12
...about pork meat shows how dangerous pork is for humans. People love to eat pork in many countries all around the world of course; however, pork increases the cancer risk because of its nutrients. The most important reason is pork’s digestive system, which causes all the sicknesses and cancer risks in humans’ body. Everybody should avoid pork, because pork cannot digest toxins that make people sick, pork has a big amount of fat that makes people obese, the employees...
Words: 1511 - Pages: 7
...Positivism is a philosophy of science and a theory of methodology which suggests that social behaviour should be researched according to the principles of natural science, whereas interpretivism is an alternative to the positivist scientific tradition, interpretivists argue society cannot be studied in the same way as objects in natural interactions. However alternative theories of methodologies e.g.: Realism, Feminism, social constructionism and methodological cosmopolitanism are said to be better useful ways for gaining an understanding of society today then positivists and interpretivists. Positivism is a philosophy of science and a theory of methodology which suggests that social behaviour should be researched according to the principles of natural science. For example Comte a positivists who first used the word ‘sociology’, argued that sociology should be based on the methodology of the natural sciences. As this would result in positive science society and would reveal invariable laws and could use the research to control and improve society. Positivists assumptions on the subject matter is that people are the subjects of social forces beyond their control, for example Durkheim (1874) tried to establish sociology as a distinct discipline with his famous study Le Suicide (using a positivists approach). Durkheim believed that Comte had not successfully established sociology as a scientific discipline as that sociology could be objective as the natural science so long as we study...
Words: 1568 - Pages: 7
