Criticisms of Sociology as a Science: Popper (1959): Science is Unique: Falsification Popper argues that Science is unique as, in their quest to find ‘truths’, scientists do not try and prove themselves right, they actually try to Falsify their work first. By trying to prove a theory wrong scientists remain objective in their endeavours & thus do not allow personal bias to infiltrate their research (unlike many sociologists). e.g. Feminism is very Value-Laden by definition. e.g. Marxism predicts a revolution but this cannot be falsified. If there is a revolution Marx is right, if there isn’t Marx is still right. Sociology therefore cannot be a science until it removes it’s value-bias from it’s theories – at which point much of sociology would not exist. Popper still values Sociology in that it helps to formulate new ideas and theories to explore. He suggests that Sociology has more un-testable theories than science simply because it hasn’t been around as a discipline as long.

Kuhn (1970) Science is Unique as it Shares Universal Truths Sciences are based on a set of assumptions called paradigms. The paradigm provides scientists with a basic framework from which to work from i.e. what methods to use, what facts to follow etc. The paradigm is essentially a set of norms – it is a culture that unites its followers. Sociology is different to Science as different Sociological Theories disagree on fundamental issues e.g. the nature of society –Structure vs. Action , Positivism vs. Interpretivism , Modern vs. Post-Modern etc. Sociology can never be a Science as it is founded on competing ideas & theories. Kuhn likens Science to a jigsaw, the overall picture is there and agreed on, and it is the job of scientists to put the pieces together as they come across them. ‘Everything is known but the detail. The challenge is not to uncover the unknown, but to obtain the known.’ On these grounds Kuhn argues that Science is unique, he also objects to Positivists wanting to be Scientists as he claims that Science isn’t all that Scientific (and therefore prestigious) in the first place…..

Kuhn (1970) Scientific Paradigms & Revolutions: Sciences are based on sets of assumptions called paradigms. These paradigms tell the scientist what reality is like, what’s right, what’s wrong, what can be done, what can’t be done, what counts as evidence, what should be discounted, who to listen to, who not to listen to etc. New scientists are ‘socialised’ into these paradigms and groomed so that they accept this paradigm & can thus ‘fit in’. Those who accept the paradigm & reach the ‘Right’ answers are rewarded e.g. more funding, professorships, awards etc. Those who ‘go against the grain’ & think outside the existing paradigm and/ or discover answers that do not fit the existing paradigm are shunned by the scientific community e.g. Dr.Velikovsky. On rare occasions, there will be too many anomalies & challenges to a paradigm and in these cases there is a ‘Scientific Revolution’ where a new paradigm is put in place & the old one rejected. E.g. Copernicus & the Heliocentric Universe E.g. Gallileo & the Uniform Movement of the Planets.

‘The Case of Dr.Velikovsky’ (1950). In his book ‘World’s in Collision’, Dr.Velikovsky proposed an ‘Alternative’ theory on the origins of the earth. In a nutshell this was that the current layout of the solar system & the conditions on Earth that were able to sustain life was a result of ‘Near Misses’ between planets which created ‘Catastrophes’ which eventually led to the earth as we now know it. Dr.Velikovsky’s research & ideas however were outright rejected by the scientific community, many of whom did not even read his book. His work was boycotted and his reputation left in tatters. What does this tell us about Science being an ‘open System’?

Billig (1998): Sociology limits itself by trying to be Scientific Why strive to be ‘Scientific’ – It limits the Researcher….. Billig (1998): Sociology limits itself by trying to be Scientific If knowledge is to develop & grow then it is important to embrace many different ‘knowledge paradigms’ instead of trying to be purely scientific e.g. Science with Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, History etc…. Wright-Mills (1959): The Sociological Imagination C. Wright-Mills advocated what he called ‘the Sociological Imagination’. In this view it is important to have a creative and open mind towards research and not limit oneself to only one source of knowledge. Bauman (2000): Liquid Modernity Bauman follows this trail of thought by suggesting that in the post-modern (or liquid modern) era, every knowledge system is worth investing in. Old, restrictive structure of the past have broken down knowledge has become free. We are no longer tied down to science.