Is Sociology a Science?

Is sociology a science?

No	15.3%	[ 15 ]
Yes	60.2%	[ 59 ]
Gold	24.5%	[ 24 ]
Total Votes:			[ 98 ]

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Blaze-kun

Lucky~9~Lives

I disagree with the general sentiment that science necessarily requires a mathematical foundation - mathematics is indeed a valuable language with which to express scientific truths, but it is not the essence of science itself. Experimentation is, however, and I feel that is where sociology falls short, to the extent it is impossible to formulate and conduct repeatable experiments involving social institutions. I mean, sociology makes statements like 'most over-50s view prison's function as a deterrent', and 'free-market economies are more likely in predominantly white societies', (I totally made those up, they're just analogues of actual sociological claims) but it doesn't really comment on why that's the case, beyond speculation, so the discipline ultimately comes down to an exercise in cataloging. Although, maybe I'm being too narrow in my conception of sociology.
- xp

Science is never certain. It can only make predictions based on statistical probabilities. Take for instance physics. Like sociology, physics is useful for predicting group behavior (in this case of atoms and molecules). If I stand on a chair, there is a very, very small chance that I will not be held up by that chair, but in fact the atoms of my foot and the chair will align in such a way that my foot falls through the chair. Though the chance that my foot may pass through the chair is incredibly smaller than the chance that the chair will hold my weight and I will be able to stand on it, there is still that small chance, that tiny uncertainty.

Yeah, but the point is physics has underlying theories based on empirical testing - it not only claims that 'your foot is highly unlikely to pass through the chair', but also why that's the case ('like charges repel').

[Blaze-kun]

Lucky~9~Lives

Blaze-kun

Lucky~9~Lives

I disagree with the general sentiment that science necessarily requires a mathematical foundation - mathematics is indeed a valuable language with which to express scientific truths, but it is not the essence of science itself. Experimentation is, however, and I feel that is where sociology falls short, to the extent it is impossible to formulate and conduct repeatable experiments involving social institutions. I mean, sociology makes statements like 'most over-50s view prison's function as a deterrent', and 'free-market economies are more likely in predominantly white societies', (I totally made those up, they're just analogues of actual sociological claims) but it doesn't really comment on why that's the case, beyond speculation, so the discipline ultimately comes down to an exercise in cataloging. Although, maybe I'm being too narrow in my conception of sociology.
- xp

Science is never certain. It can only make predictions based on statistical probabilities. Take for instance physics. Like sociology, physics is useful for predicting group behavior (in this case of atoms and molecules). If I stand on a chair, there is a very, very small chance that I will not be held up by that chair, but in fact the atoms of my foot and the chair will align in such a way that my foot falls through the chair. Though the chance that my foot may pass through the chair is incredibly smaller than the chance that the chair will hold my weight and I will be able to stand on it, there is still that small chance, that tiny uncertainty.

Yeah, but the point is physics has underlying theories based on empirical testing - it not only claims that 'your foot is highly unlikely to pass through the chair', but also why that's the case ('like charges repel').

There are also underlying theories based on empirical testing in sociology, as in any science.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Blaze-kun

There are also underlying theories based on empirical testing in sociology, as in any science.

Such as?

[Blaze-kun]

Lucky~9~Lives

Blaze-kun

There are also underlying theories based on empirical testing in sociology, as in any science.

Such as?

Google search: sociology + theories

And yes you are correct that sociology and social psychology overlap quite a bit.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Blaze-kun

Lucky~9~Lives

Blaze-kun

There are also underlying theories based on empirical testing in sociology, as in any science.

Such as?

Google search: sociology + theories

And yes you are correct that sociology and social psychology overlap quite a bit.

That link doesn't work (not that I couldn't Google it myself, but all I seem to get is speculative, non-scientific theories, a la Marx and Engles); to the extent that sociology is the science of social psychology applied to history. I guess I could see sociology as the scientific study of specific societies, making predictions such as 'the likelihood of a black person in America getting a Ph.D' - that would make social psychology a generalized sociology, I guess.

[Omorose Panya]

Social psychology and sociology are different. The former is about the effects of groups on individuals, while the latter is the effects of groups on groups, as well as the effects of systems on groups.

Sociology is a social science for a reason. As in, it's not really scientific but they want to feel better about themselves so they have the word science in the title. However, it is far more objective than Psychology since the focus is not on the mind. I think it's more useful than psychology as well.

How sociology gathers and analyzes data is, likewise, more scientific than psychology.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Omorose Panya

Social psychology and sociology are different. The former is about the effects of groups on individuals, while the latter is the effects of groups on groups, as well as the effects of systems on groups.

Interesting analysis.

Omorose Panya

Sociology is a social science for a reason. As in, it's not really scientific but they want to feel better about themselves so they have the word science in the title.

lol

Omorose Panya

However, it is far more objective than Psychology since the focus is not on the mind. I think it's more useful than psychology as well.

How sociology gathers and analyzes data is, likewise, more scientific than psychology.

Two problems with that: firstly, psychology studies (perhaps exclusively, depending on the school one adheres too) behaviour, which is empirical; secondly, the focus of sociology - groups - are significantly non-empirical (they're abstract, patterns). The thorny issue of the objective/subjective dichotomy aside, science is fundamentally empirical.

[Ashokan Farewell]

Aspasia Sariel

Lucky~9~Lives

Yeah, you have a point. I was taught that there is a scientific approach, an interpretive approach, and a critical approach.
- sweatdrop

Although, what do you mean by 'replicable'?

You know, I find it is not as easy to articulate that as I thought it would be. By replicable, if a sociologist examines the life expectancy of an infant at birth based on where they're born, whatever correlation the sociologist may be examining, their data should be unbiased and then any other person examining that data should have similar results.

But I don't think that's a necessity for something to be "scientific" - the Heisenburg uncertainly principle applies to more than just the location of very small particles. Archeology is very scientific and uses very precise methodology for things like dating artifacts but to do so, they have to destroy what they study (though the sample size for lab testing is decreasing and new methods of analysis are emerging - there is still the fact that digging something destroys the context which is what gives a lot of information). And the study of humans is made incredibly difficult by the fact that we never stop changing. Take your example, but this time imagine that a sociologist goes to a village in rural India and collects data on infant mortality. But then, right after she leaves, a rural health center is built in the village. Now the data can't be replicated. That's not becuase the study wasn't a valid way of collecting accurate data about the lives of people in the village, it is becuase the village changed where chemical reactions and laws of physics don't.

But I for one do not think we can afford to wait for more "scientific" means of data collection to study groups of people or their cultures and societies becuase, as I said, we're always changing and if we don't collect what data we can, we won't have another chance to know it as well as we can if we collect information now. So I do think that sociology (or anthropology) and are sciences even if the methods don't create repeatable experiments. The intention is still to gather knowledge about the way social groups work and the methods are as good as we can get now (and always improving).

[Ashokan Farewell]

New Thought Queen

Vosi

Sociology is a science. Sociology studies quantifiable data, works through the same method, and can contribute results that are easily open for peer review. Sociology is just a more difficult science, in that like psychology, a lot of the empirical evidence can be misleading or have a deeper reaching meaning than originally thought.

The science ends with the data, the interpretations, which are a huge part of sociology are most certainly NOT science.

Then what is Theoretical Physics? Astronomy?

[Aspasia Sariel]

Ashokan Farewell

Aspasia Sariel

You know, I find it is not as easy to articulate that as I thought it would be. By replicable, if a sociologist examines the life expectancy of an infant at birth based on where they're born, whatever correlation the sociologist may be examining, their data should be unbiased and then any other person examining that data should have similar results.

But I don't think that's a necessity for something to be "scientific" - the Heisenburg uncertainly principle applies to more than just the location of very small particles. Archeology is very scientific and uses very precise methodology for things like dating artifacts but to do so, they have to destroy what they study (though the sample size for lab testing is decreasing and new methods of analysis are emerging - there is still the fact that digging something destroys the context which is what gives a lot of information). And the study of humans is made incredibly difficult by the fact that we never stop changing. Take your example, but this time imagine that a sociologist goes to a village in rural India and collects data on infant mortality. But then, right after she leaves, a rural health center is built in the village. Now the data can't be replicated. That's not becuase the study wasn't a valid way of collecting accurate data about the lives of people in the village, it is becuase the village changed where chemical reactions and laws of physics don't.

But I for one do not think we can afford to wait for more "scientific" means of data collection to study groups of people or their cultures and societies becuase, as I said, we're always changing and if we don't collect what data we can, we won't have another chance to know it as well as we can if we collect information now. So I do think that sociology (or anthropology) and are sciences even if the methods don't create repeatable experiments. The intention is still to gather knowledge about the way social groups work and the methods are as good as we can get now (and always improving).

Replication typically, in the sociological context, would require using that same person's data - one could also be taking data within a similar enough context to try to make correlations. If you change the data collecting you're not sticking to sound scientific theory. Being able to verify something through replication is key to scientific method. If you dismiss that, you're removing that part of the science from sociology.

That being said, revisiting the area and charting such changes would be beneficial. Science acknowledges change. That's one of the best things about it.

I dont' see where we can use the Uncertainty principle outside of quantum mechanics...Planck's constant is too small. It's best used in that scope only.

[Ashokan Farewell]

Aspasia Sariel

Ashokan Farewell

Aspasia Sariel

You know, I find it is not as easy to articulate that as I thought it would be. By replicable, if a sociologist examines the life expectancy of an infant at birth based on where they're born, whatever correlation the sociologist may be examining, their data should be unbiased and then any other person examining that data should have similar results.

But I don't think that's a necessity for something to be "scientific" - the Heisenburg uncertainly principle applies to more than just the location of very small particles. Archeology is very scientific and uses very precise methodology for things like dating artifacts but to do so, they have to destroy what they study (though the sample size for lab testing is decreasing and new methods of analysis are emerging - there is still the fact that digging something destroys the context which is what gives a lot of information). And the study of humans is made incredibly difficult by the fact that we never stop changing. Take your example, but this time imagine that a sociologist goes to a village in rural India and collects data on infant mortality. But then, right after she leaves, a rural health center is built in the village. Now the data can't be replicated. That's not becuase the study wasn't a valid way of collecting accurate data about the lives of people in the village, it is becuase the village changed where chemical reactions and laws of physics don't.

But I for one do not think we can afford to wait for more "scientific" means of data collection to study groups of people or their cultures and societies becuase, as I said, we're always changing and if we don't collect what data we can, we won't have another chance to know it as well as we can if we collect information now. So I do think that sociology (or anthropology) and are sciences even if the methods don't create repeatable experiments. The intention is still to gather knowledge about the way social groups work and the methods are as good as we can get now (and always improving).

Replication typically, in the sociological context, would require using that same person's data - one could also be taking data within a similar enough context to try to make correlations. If you change the data collecting you're not sticking to sound scientific theory. Being able to verify something through replication is key to scientific method. If you dismiss that, you're removing that part of the science from sociology.

That being said, revisiting the area and charting such changes would be beneficial. Science acknowledges change. That's one of the best things about it.

I dont' see where we can use the Uncertainty principle outside of quantum mechanics...Planck's constant is too small. It's best used in that scope only.

Couldn't it be said that replication is merely a means to meet burden of proof?... which is key to science's quest to develop knowledge and differentiate between knowledge and superstition. And don't worry about the Uncertainty Principle thing. Not everyone can follow when I start talking in metaphors and if you're trying to apply Planck's constant, I'm going to have too hard a time figuring out a way to make that work for you. Basically, what I was saying is that the subject of study in the social sciences is constantly in motion (always changing) and that even the act of studying it may destroy it or change it further.

[citiesburning]

I would argue that it's a science. You can test things involved in that subject and come up with predictions and generalizations.

[Aspasia Sariel]

Ashokan Farewell

Couldn't it be said that replication is merely a means to meet burden of proof?... which is key to science's quest to develop knowledge and differentiate between knowledge and superstition.

While I am not entirely comfortable with using proof in this context, replication is subjecting one's work to peers to review. The more peers who come to the same results, the stronger credence given to the theory or findings. If everyone gets the same results from a given set or collections of data, we're more likely to be on the right track.

Quote:

And don't worry about the Uncertainty Principle thing. Not everyone can follow when I start talking in metaphors and if you're trying to apply Planck's constant, I'm going to have too hard a time figuring out a way to make that work for you.

Well, I must admit I am a bit worried about it - you've used the principle very much out of context and where it isn't applicable to sociology. Perhaps you're thinking more along the lines of observer effect, which is not the Uncertainty principle. Planck's constant, being so very small, makes it rather difficult for it to influence (for lack of a better description) data on such as large scale and is an integral part of what the Uncertainty principle really portrays.

Quote:

Basically, what I was saying is that the subject of study in the social sciences is constantly in motion (always changing) and that even the act of studying it may destroy it or change it further.

There is change in all facets of science as we progress, not merely in cultures and societies, but as a result of technology as well. Our ability to better study without destroying or changing the subject is improved. Are we to sit and do nothing because we're too afraid to muddle with anything? I certainly hope not. That does not give us the right to throw caution to the wind either and no longer adhere to sound scientific method because something may change? The strength is that science and the methodology we employ accounts for those changes and is open to them.

[Rukasu]

I was wondering if any of you had an opinion on where Social/Cultural Anthropology fits in here. If Sociology is a science, is Cultural Anthropology a science as well? Since they're so similar, should they just be considered as a package?

Thanks in advance.

[Innovatingboy]

For those who dispute that Sociology is a science, I refer you to a paper which I co-authored on "The use of formal methods to map, analyze and interpret hawala and terrorist-related alternative remittance systems", which can be found at the UC Irving within the eScholarship Repository E-learning center at this address:

http://repositories.cdlib.org/imbs/socdyn/sdeas/vol1/iss2/art6

The other co-author was the father of Network Analysis in the field of Statistical Analysis, who considered himself a Sociological Scientist until the day he died.

The cataloging was done by Dr. Charles White in the Sociological Science category.