People's Commissar
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2003 7:02 am Post subject: Not all sociologists claim it to be a science |
 |
|
Sociology should not be scientific
Not all sociologists want to claim that sociology is a science. Some do, of
course, because scientific status is sought for the subject, or because it
is believed that scientific methods are applicable to the social sciences
(particularly, of course positivists). Other sociologists want nothing to do
with traditional science.
Part of the problem here is that many people still tend to see science as
essentially an investigation of nature, and humans are significantly
different from most of the objects of scientific research, and partly to do
with the fact that particularly in Britain and the USA there has arisen a
vast conceptual gap between the sciences and the humanities. This has
developed into a particularly rigid definition of what science is, modeled
exclusively on the
methods of natural science.
Those sociologists who have no great desire for their work to be considered
scientific tend to be interpretive sociologists. They would make the
following claims:
a.. ˇ Science is too rigorous-sociology needs the open-minded
creativity of the artist.
b.. ˇ Science is too empirical. Sociology should be committed to
change.
c.. ˇ Science is too manipulative. Sociology should not aim to
change society(the opposite of 2)
Examples:
a.. ˇ C.W. Mills refers to the cookbook approach of some
scientifically orientated sociology textbooks. Mills argues that sociology
is better practiced with imagination and flexibility than with rigid
adherence to the models of natural science. Mills complains that following
scientific principles can lead sociologists into what he calls abstracted
empiricism-an insight less search for facts. He argues; Sociology is a craft
to be judged by its product: what works best is best.
a.. ˇ Like Mills, Jack Douglas complains that positivism too often
forces a sociologist into a particular stance, rather than a particular
stance indicating a particular methodology. In other words the means become
more important than the ends.
a.. ˇ Erwin Goffman compares positivist methodology to the
instructions on a child's chemistry set; follow the rules and you too can be
a real scientist.
It is important then to consider the nature of social research; humans are
not like other research material.
a.. ˇ Humans are reflexive-they think about themselves and what is
happening around them.
b.. ˇ Because they think experiments on humans can alter their
behaviour.
c.. ˇ Manipulating humans may be unethical, but also in research
the subjects of research may end up manipulating the researchers.
d.. ˇ Humans can lie, or deceive, as subjects of research they too
might have purposes to achieve.
e.. ˇ Experimenting on humans will in many cases create an
unnatural situation, thus behaviour will be untypical.
f.. ˇ The number of variables to be considered is always unknown.
g.. ˇ Replication of research is not possible.
h.. ˇ Human behaviour is meaningful. But the meanings cannot be
directly observed.
Interpretivists embrace the subjective aspects of both themselves and the
subjects of their research. The claim they make is that it is not possible
to be passive observers of the truth.
Marxists also criticise pure science because they see it as a product of
capitalism. Herbert Marcuse in One Dimensional Man, sees positivism as
ideological, in concentrating only on the observable it rejects a
consideration of philosophical (and unobservable) concepts such as justice,
democracy and fulfilment.
Nicolai Bukarin agrees arguing that positivists ignore: All earthly
sufferings, all conflicting interests, all the ups and downs of life, the
hunt for profit and other earthly and vulgar things.(Which were seen as
having) no relation whatever with their science.
For Marcuse and other Marxists, sociology should adopt a critical stance.
Objectivity is conservatism in disguise
--
Satanic Reds
Frames: http://satanicreds.says.it
Bookmark http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds
Michelet Sataniam www.lylyth.org
Cthulhu Mythos:
http://.innsmouth.rules.it
http://lovecraft.shows.it |
|
- wolf -
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2003 1:14 pm Post subject: Re: Not all sociologists claim it to be a science |
|
|
Perhaps you should have mentioned that this particular person presents that
article as just one contrary view, among literally hundreds of other
articles on sociology.
I would also draw your attention to the following section in the text you
stole (excuse me, "quoted"):
"Part of the problem here is that many people still tend to see science as
essentially an investigation of nature, and humans are significantly
different from most of the objects of scientific research, and partly to do
with the fact that particularly in Britain and the USA there has arisen a
vast conceptual gap between the sciences and the humanities. This has
developed into a particularly rigid definition of what science is, modeled
exclusively on the methods of natural science."
It simply means that because SOME people have a rather rigid definition of
when something is science (i.e., it's only science if it's dissected), then
according to those people sociology wouldn't be science. They hold that it's
science if we describe plants, but not if we describe humans. Apparently you
consider humans to be vastly different from other natural beings, if you
agree with those who take that view.
- wolf - |
|
