To answer the question if sociology is a science or not, first we need to know what is science, otherwise the question does

not make much sense. Actually current ph ilosophical views on the nature of science is diverse, and largely liberalized from previous views. First, they no longer accept strong criteria of falsification as a scientific method. There are several ways to formulate falsification, but her e I mean something like this: scientific theories should make observable predictions and we should discard a theory if we find only one discrepancy between a prediction of the theory and an observation. Because even physics cannot meet such a strong crite ria, now philosophers like Lakatos (1970) admit tolerance to such failure to some extent. Another new movement in philosophy is the attack on the universal laws. Cartwright (1983) argued that seemingly universal physical laws are not really universal, fro m logical point of view. This and other reasons (note1), Cartwright (1983) and Hacking (1983) presented a new view of science in which piecemeal "models", instead of universal laws and theories, play the central role of scientific investigation . Here, "models" means oversimplified mental pictures of structure. For example, planetary model of atoms is long known as an oversimplification, but still it is widely used by chemists as a convenient way for thinking about chemical reactions. I do not have enough space to give a definition of science, but these considerations will be enough to help our judgment on the status of sociology. 3. Is sociology a science? With the analysis of science in the previous section in mind, let us turn to sociology. Early sociologists tried to establish sociology as a science, and their arguments are mainly on the methodology of sociology. Comte claimed that sociology uses four different kinds of methodologies, namely observation, experiment, comparison and historical research as a special case of comparison (CST pp. 89-90, SCS pp.42-54). These are the methodology used in several other scientific field, especially in biology. So if his sociology had really followed these methods, it would have been a st rong case for sociology as a science. But actually he never did empirical research (CST p. 110), so we cannot take his argument at the face value. But his argument influenced on other sociologists, especially Durkheim. For Durkheim, sociology is a study o f social facts (CST p.185). A social fact is "a thing that is external to, and coercive of, the actor" (ibid., emphasis original). Because they are external, social facts cannot be investigated by introspection (ibid.). We should use empirical research. A typical use of this methodology is in his analysis of suicide (CST p.195). Durkheim used statistics on suicide rate to establish his argument that suicide is a social phenomenon. He refused alternative hypotheses because their predi ctions did not agree with the actual statistical data. This is an admirable attempt of empirical research of society, but there are several problems. Durkheim applied too strict criteria of falsification to rival accounts. Adoption of these strict criteri a is suicidal for sociology, because it is hard

for a sociological theory to make a precise prediction, let alone to make a precise and correct prediction (and without this, the falsification criteria do not work). Another related problem is in his reject ion of introspection as a sociological method. This restricts the scope of sociology too narrowly, and in fact even Durkheim's own study becomes impossible. For example, Durkheim's definition of suicide is "any case of death 'resulting directly of indirec tly from a positive or negative act of an individual against himself, which he knows must produce this result'" (ED p.32). But, without using introspection, how can we decide if 'he knows' the result or not, from external evidence only? I think that W eber's methodology provides an answer to these problems. His key word in this point is "Verstehen," a German word for "understanding" or "interpretation" (CST pp.222 -224, FMW pp. 55-56). According to him, we can "understand" other people's motivation thr ough introspection of our own intentions, and this kind of knowledge is necessary for sociology. This is exactly what Durkheim denied as a method of sociology, but as we saw above even Durkheim himself used this "understanding" in his actual work. But, o f course, the problem is if this is permissible as a scientific method. Strong falsification of a theory is almost impossible by such "interpreted" facts, because if an interpreted fact runs counter to the theory we can just change the interpretation. But , as we saw in the last section, such strong falsification is given up by philosophers of science as too strict a criteria. Moreover, the arbitrariness of interpretation is not as great as one might worry. For example, Comte's three stage theory (the deta il of the theory does not matter here) has no follower today because there is no way we can reasonably interpret the evolution of society as obeying such a law. In this case we can say that Comte's theory was falsified. As far as we have this minimal poss ibility of falsification, we can admit "Verstehen" as a scientific method of sociology, thus "interpretive" sociology as a science. Before we proceed to next section, I would like to make a brief remark on the use of models in sociology. One of the re ason people may argue against sociology as a science is the lack of the sociological theory. We have Marx's theory, Durkheim's theory, Weber's theory and so on, but none of them are shared by all sociologists. This seems to make a strong contrast w ith other fields of science where scientists agree on the basic theories. But, as we saw in the last section, some philosophers think that even in other scientific field what scientists are working on are piecemeal models, not a universal theory. And as f or such models, we can find abundant models shared by many sociologists. Actually, this is what Weber called "ideal types" (CST pp225228). Ideal types are constructed through exaggerating some features of real cases. By comparing with ideal types we can find characteristics of each real case. These ideal types are useful conceptual tools for sociology just in the same sense as the planetary

model of atoms is a useful conceptual tool for chemists. So, in this point, the difference between sociology and o ther scientific fields is not so great as it seems to be. 4. On "value free" sociology To talk about "value free" sociology, I introduce a distinction made by philosophers recently (e.g. Laudan 1984). This is the distinction between "epistemic values" and non-epistemic values. Epistemic values are related to a special type of question "what should we accept as knowledge (or a fact)?" Logical consistency, empirical adequacy, simplicity etc. are the criteria to answer such a question, and they ar e called epistemic values. On the other hand, other values are supposed to be used to answer the broader question "what should we do?" These are non-epistemic values. With this distinction, we will find that the claims of "value free" sociology made by ea rly sociologists were actually the claims for independence of epistemic values from other values in sociology (even though they are not conscious about this distinction). First, let us see the case of Spencer. Spencer distinguished several kind s of emotional biases, and claimed that we should exclude these biases from sociological research (CST pp.124-125). None of these biases are epistemic value as characterized above. Moreover, the Spencer's claim that we should exclude these biases is a value judgment, but this is an epistemic value judgment, and as far as this claim itself is not affected emotional biases, to apply such a value to sociology should be O.K. So Spencer's argument agrees with my definition of "value free" sociology. The same argument applies to Weber. Weber says that teachers should not exploit the circumstances in a lecture room to imprint upon the students his personal political views (FMW pp.146-147), because the task of teacher is to teach his students to recognize" facts that are inconvenient for their party opinions" (FMW p.147). Again this is a value judgment, but epistemic one. Apparently sociology (or any other science) cannot be free from all values (because the ideal of "value free" sociology itself is a value ), but at least it can be free from non-epistemic kinds of values, when we decide what is a fact and what is not. I guess even Marx can agree this notion of "value free" sociology to some extent. Of course in Marx's theory the value judgment and the t heory are inseparably related, but his actual arguments show that he distinguished these two things. For example, Marx criticizes Ricardo in "Theory of Surplus Value," but the primary reason he criticizes Ricardo is not that Ricardo is capitalist, but tha t Ricardo's conceptual scheme is insufficient because it cannot deal with certain cases (KM pp.398-409). Thus the criteria for this judgment is epistemic values, not other kinds of value. I think that this way of argument gives Marx's theory its pursuasiv eness.

Of course I admit non-epistemic values and sociology have many interrelationships. For example, the choice of research topic is influenced the sociologist's personal values, and sometimes a result of sociological research has immediate normativ e implications (e.g. Marx's analysis on alienated labor; KM pp. 77-87). But still, I think, at the point of accepting something as a fact, we should be free from non-epistemic values. 5. On the scope of sociology Comte thought that sociology is the study of social statics (social structure) and social dynamics (social change) (CST p.94). Durkheim thought that sociology should deal with social facts. Simmel claimed that "everything which was not science of external nature must be science of soci ety" (SCS p.29). Does any of them have the right answer? I don't think that there is anything right or wrong on this topic, but my own preference is Simmel's answer quoted here. I think that Comte's and Durkheim's answers tried to restrict the subject fie ld of sociology to establish sociology as a independent scientific field. But now no one would doubt sociology is an independent field (even though someone might object that it is not a "scientific" field). In this situation, such a conscious self restric tion of subject matter is nothing but an obstacle to interdisciplinary cooperations with psychology and other neighbor fields. This is why I like Simmel's answer. 6. Conclusion According to the liberalized philosophical view on science, there is nothing wrong with admitting Weber's "Verstehen" and "ideal types" as scientific method, thus admitting sociology using these method as a science. Recent distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic values makes the claim of "value free" sociology int elligible, and I think it is a reasonable position if taken in the sense I defined. I also briefly talked about the scope of sociology, and argued that we should not be restrictive on the subject matter of sociology. Notes 1. For example, even in physics, the scientists in closely related fields sometimes accept mutually inconsistent theories in each field and have no problem. This shows that they are primarily interested in the application of the theory in their own field, and are not interest ed in the universality of the theory.References

Scientific method having a hypotheses and testing it rigorously

2. Scientific Method
o o

Philosophy and mathematics may be true knowledge but not necessarily linked to the real world Science: others can repeat the method, replicate the experiment and so, Wallace claims, it gives the method a claim to superiority

3. Positivists
o o o o

Believe that science can explain the universe They use hypo-deductive reasoning to test their beliefs This is when scientists present a theory and invite others to prove them wrong It is based on the concept that nothing can be proven to be 100% true but theories can be proven false I would never be able to prove that I am going to live forever but others could quite easily prove that I wont by killing me

4. Positivists
o

It is reasoned that if a theory cannot be proven wrong it has an increased likelihood of being correct/true (but we will never be 100% sure) According to positivists, for theories to be scientific they must be testable/falsifiable Positivists believe that a scientifically backed theory is far more valid than one that is not backed up with hard evidence Positivists see the world as being full of concrete testable realities and use quantitative methods to support their theories

o o

5. Interpretivists
o o o o o

Are very sceptical about the positivists scientific claims They see the world as a largely socially constructed place Reality as we understand it only exists because of agreed shared concepts Knowledge itself is whatever we agree it to be For example, most people would recognize a chair as something useful to sit on but if you took it to a very aggressive tribe who had been isolated from the rest of the world they may view it as a shield with spikes on!!!

6. Interpretivists
o

Context is, therefore, a hugely important aspect of knowledge itself and is really important when we are trying to understand/interpret a situation Interpretivists dont think that scientific methodology is useful to the study of human interactions or sociology in general

They see it as invalid because it often removes the context or interferes in some way with the subject matter Interpretivists use qualitative research techniques such as ethnographic techniques, observations and unstructured interviews Which one do you suppose thinks Sociology should be a science?

7.
o

8. Positivism
o

But even amongst positivists there is no agreement as to whether a theoretical subject such as sociology should be considered to be truly scientific An examination of what constitutes a science might make things clearer!

9. Science must..
o o o o o

have testable concepts rely on accurate gathering of information to get reliable measurable data be able to make generalisations based on the research conducted to establish universal laws be objective (unbiased) based on practical investigations empirical evidence

10. What is Science?

o o o o o

Empirical Theoretical Objective Testable Cumulative

11. Empirical:
o

Know through the senses tested physically

12. Testable:
o o o

Can be verified or refuted Falsification is the most important characteristic as far as Karl Popper is concerned Not collecting information and formulating a theory ( Induction as used by Durkheim) but formulating a theory and using data to test it

13. Testable:
o o

Sociology cannot use laboratory experiments to test theories It cannot isolate the variables in a situation

But this is true of cosmology, meteorology, volcanologist and animal behaviour which are also open systems . This does not stop theories being tested by observation Sociologists claim that comparative methods allows testing of a result (triangulation)

14. Theoretical:
o o

Sociology can predict how groups of people will react The proposal of patterns is something that can be tested

15. Cumulative
o o o

Both the evolution of theories and collection of data is cumulative in sociology Theories change and become more complex over time Longitudinal studies amass large amounts of data

16. Karl Popper

o o o

Says that for a subject to be scientific it must be testable using hypo-deductive reasoning It must have testable concepts that could be proven wrong using scientific methodology ( falsified ) You must, therefore, be able to isolate an independent variable and establish causal links between it and its consequences

17. Kuhn and Paradigms

o o o

Kuhn uses the concept of ideological paradigms to explain why scientists are in not infallible He points out that all science operates under an ideological paradigm This is a fixed belief or set of beliefs that most of the community accept to be true and, therefore, interpret all scientific findings from that viewpoint Currently a useful paradigm is the theory of evolution It is a useful practice and it is hard to imagine how a system would work without such agreement ..but it is arrogant and foolish to forget that the initial premise is a theory and may be wrong as historically it has been many times But Kuhn also says for a subject to really be considered a science it should at least have a prevailing paradigm, an overriding belief system that most of its practitioners accept Paradigm An umbrella of beliefs and attitudes that affects our behaviour If I believe X then I understand Y and Z It is already obvious that much Sociological research would struggle to meet all of these criteria

o o o

18.
o

o o o

19.
o

20. Positivism in Sociology

Positivists feel that it is valid to use scientific methods despite the fact that the independent variable can rarely be fully isolated They think that the methodology itself is still useful and is the most reliable tool in searching for Knowledge Knowledge itself, as far as they are concerned, is a concrete reality that can be measured and tested They feel that there is such a thing as a social fact

o o

21. Interactionism in Sociology

o

Interactionists do not agree that there is such a thing as a social fact in the same sense that positivists view it They do not think knowledge itself is concrete or testable just a shared reality Consequently, it is fairly immaterial whether sociology meets the criteria of science They question the validity of science and feel that the experimental process itself often contaminates what it is meant to be learning about

o o o

22. Science and the modern world: the postmodernist criticism

o o o o

By claiming a monopoly on explanation, scientists have replaced priests as the sources of truth There are many questions that are not asked and cannot be answered by science What is life for? What is justice? Are we responsible for other people? By posing as having an answer for everything science is cheapening life

23. Sociology cant and shouldnt be a science: the ideas of Schutz, Billig and Bauman
o o

Durkheim thought society was like a building with hidden structure that could be uncovered But if we are actors who continually construct society by the meanings we give to actions and explanations of behaviour then the detached approach of the scientist is both inappropriate and impossible

24. Why does it matter if Sociology is a science?

o o o

To ensure prestige so the subject can gain funding for teaching and research at universities To give weight to its findings so that they have the authority by being backed by scientific method To give protections: Sociology has been threatened in different countries (from the Prussian civil servants to Robert Mugabe and Margaret Thatcher) as a source of subjective political criticism

25. Summary:
o o o o

Sociology wanted to be seen as a science for status Scientists have pointed to aspects of sociology and said that it cant meet all the criteria Positivists believe by rigorous research design (with triangulation) there can be a social science Science itself does not meet all the criteria of being scientific!

Interactionists think the debate itself is stuck in an age of outdated notions that there is a fixed, knowable world out there to be discovered There are many means of discovery of which science is only one It is the politicians that like the so called hard facts and they hold the purse strings so Sociology must conform

o o

With thanks to the various image copyright holders