|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Sociologists study society as a social science however the status of sociology as a science is easily questionable when compared to how acknowledged scientists study the natural world. In order to determine whether or not sociology can be accepted as a true science it is useful to make comparisons between the studies performed by both sociologists and natural scientists on their subjects of society and the natural world respectively. At its most fundamental level, the philosophy behind knowledge, reality and being must also be scrutinized as the knowledge which is so eagerly pursued by scientists is only relevant under certain philosophical conditions.
The natural world can be accepted as what can be sensed and has matter. Scientists study the natural world using an empirical, experimental and factual approach. ... A biologist can study the nucleus of a cell because it can be seen with a microscope and experiments show it to exist. A chemist can study hydrogen because it can be sensed through its reactions with other chemicals. A physicist can study electricity because it can be seen to exist by lighting a bulb. They study these things in the pursuit of knowledge.
Society is different from the natural world in that it is not a thing with physical existence that can be investigated with our senses. Society consists of groupings of humans, and its study looks at the way these groupings behave. When a sociologist studies society they look at behaviour and the mind. ...
With science, one of the main aims in seeking the facts is keeping a high level of objectivity so that those facts which are sought are the same for all scientists, independent of their subjective inclinations. This objectivity would seem fairly simply, say, with study of inanimate objects. However, sociologists study people and people dont necessarily behave like inanimate objects - they may, for example, react differently to varying interviewing styles used in social research. ... A level of bias is hence created, whilst such bias is perhaps far more difficult to leverage in the study of the natural world.
If an expert natural scientists proclaims that "the mass of the substance x is 5g" it may be taken as a scientific objective fact. Any number of scientists could conduct a similar study and would return the same empirical result, giving additional experimental proof and backing to the first scientists study. A sociologist has a far greater struggle in their line of study, as the majority of result they may conclude will be difficult to prove and replicate in further studies.
But whatever results are collected by both the sociologist and the natural scientists, any objectivity found is still subject to our philosophical understanding of reality, conditioned by the society and time in which we have come to live. ... Idealists (such as Plato and Hegel of the past) see every material thing having been created by a powerful God or spirit, and ideas govern the material world. ... Materialists would argue that any level of perceived free-will is not free-will and ideas are "nothing else than the material world reflected in the human mind, and translated into forms and thoughts" (Marx).
Approximate Word count = 2586
Approximate Pages = 10.3
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|