Evidence and proof

One major element that science has is the idea that each theory they construct has evidences to prove their theory. They can conduct experiments over and over again and it will always produce the same results. Although in the field of sociology, empirical research can also be done but because the subjects are human with their own independent rational thoughts, it is hard to produce the same exact results that science can. Rather, there is a higher factor of error in sociology. How do you think Durkheim would respond to that? How would you argue that sociology can be just as equally accurate as science.

Hi Jessica,

I feel that Durkheim would disagree with there being a higher factor of error in sociology. Sociological inquiries do reach valid and often reliable conclusions at times. However, I understand that this type of investigation may be devalorized in that reliability is lesser than the hard sciences in which variables and objects can be controlled very tightly, in a vaccuum pretty much. I feel that Durkheim and myself would argue that the inability to create hard and fast rules about phenomena is intriguing and allows for more understandings to be sought after due to changing social and historical contexts. Durkheim says on page 64 that incompleteness of results should arouse new efforts, not surrender. This does not mean that there is a higher error factor. It is great that studies can perpetually introduce new areas of inquiry that vary from studies done a few years ago.

I don't know how to argue that sociology can be accurate as hard sciences because, in hard sciences, they are able to distil and control variables to a greater degree I think. However, I don't see this as necessarily a weakness of sociology in that human subjects are less controllable. I see this as a positive implication in that studies can keep building and changing to investigate different populations at different times. Things keep changing so new areas of inquiry emerge. I like to think of this as a strength.

Hugh, the point you bring up on the devalorization of social science compared to hard science makes me think of a heated conversation I had with a hard-core political science student a few weeks ago. He said that sociology is a pseudo-science while political science is a hard science; he even adds that there is literally the word "science" in "political science". This, of course, got me really worked up to defend our discipline. From the conversation we had, it occurs to me that, within the social sciences field itself, there are controversies about how different disciplines measure up to the standards of hard sciences. It is interesting how we have naturally held the hard sciences to the pedestal with its high level of control, rigour, and objectivity--we have come to use it as a point of reference. Even us, political scientists and sociologists, feel the need to understand how our disciplines compare with hard science.

I think that this makes sociology doubly difficult to defend. First from a macro level, we have to challenge the entire paradigm of thinking strictly through objectivity and quantifiability. This is important for all disciplines that are considered "soft science". Second, like Hugh shared, we have to recognize and learn the positive implications of examining our highly context dependent and ever-changing nature of our species.

On a slightly different note: I took a Mixed Methods Research (SOCI 381) course last term and we learned that there exist strengths and weaknesses in both quantitative types of research (i.e.surveys, controlled-experiments...etc.;) and qualitative types of research (i.e.focus groups, interviews, open-ended questions...). While hard sciences is dominantly quantitative, soft sciences is dominantly qualitative. However, we learned that both types of research can offset each others' weaknesses to offer us a more comprehensive and robust understanding of the topic in question. The iterative approach of using both qualitative and quantitative methods enables us to design the study to fit with our rationale and research questions. Thus, rather than believing that the hard science trumps all other disciplines, or that the soft science is superior to hard science, it might be helpful to understand how the unity of these methods can lead to more informative findings.

Hi Jessica, I really like the way you organized your argument. Hard sciences are what people instinctively resort to for a point of reference. I agree and feel that both hard and soft sciences and all disciplines work hand in hand to find an answer. In Durkheim's reading, he mentions the importance of other subjects like history and philosophy when studying a subject like sociology (para 2, page 64).

Hi Barbara, I really like how you brought up this debate between political science and sociology and how because it doesn't have the word "science" in it or isn't as "black and white" as physics or biology would be for example. This is a prime example of the stigma that sociology as a discipline and its practicants go through, but people need to understand that people aren't just black and white, there are so many of people living on this Earth each going through different things because of their backgrounds or just everything around them makes it impossible for universal laws to be made, these external factors affecting each and everyone of us and our actions change every time a new generation is born and thus making the previous social theory outdated. But that is the case with every sciences, how many times has there been a new discovery that disrcredited or put back into question previous theory? Just because with sociology there aren't many universal laws that apply for everyone shouldn't mean that it isn't considered part of the sciences.

Hi Hugh, I agree with what you are saying about Drukheim trying to disconnect sociology from science. I really liked Jessica’s build off of this, in her point that there isn’t one concrete answer that results in suicide due to the many influencing factors – individual and social. Because sociology isn’t a hard science, we can continuously grow and develop new discoveries. Therefore I think in certain cases, such as with humans, sociology can be just as accurate, or even more accurate than science.

Hi Jessica, I agree with Hugh. I feel like that Durkheim is attempting to disconnect sociology from science. Durkheim acknowledges that science produces the same results over and over again, but that in itself is the problem, especially when something like suicide is such a subjective issue. Sociology attempts to cover many factors that influence a result, whereas science has concrete answers that address all matters. Looking solely at Durkheim and suicide, there isn't one concrete answer that results in suicide. There are many ranging factors that influence a person/ society. Science would only address suicide by stating one solution that fits all.

I also agree with Hugh and Namra although suicide has an individual factor to it the social conditions that surround the individual is in most cases what triggers the issues. To say that there is a scientific answer and that all people who commit suicide have psychological problems is an easy out and not addressing the possibilities that a change in scenery or social environment for the individual would have never caused the psychological problems to rise up and a psychological problem would have never been seen in the individual.

Jessica, I partially agree and partially disagree with you on how science is different and more concrete than sociology. I agree with your statement about how science can produce the same result from conducting experiments over and over, thus creating theories that correspond with their experiments. However, I disagree with your case of sociology and how it isn't seen as being as concrete as science. Although there are some truths to having different results on multiple occasions due to the subject being humans, I believe that there are many sociological theories that are extremely applicable to our current lives when they were constructed well before our days. Without a doubt there is a higher factor of error in sociology but there are also many errors in science when conducting experiments. Nonetheless, I believe that sociology is and should be considered as relevant and accurate as any form of science.

Hi Lukas,

I also agree that there are many sociological theories that are still relevant in our lives and can describe our current state of being. For example, just in the case of Marx's writings, almost everything he says still applies to our present day world and practically all schools of knowledge has at one point or another referenced Marx. However, at the same time what Marx believed is only one side of things, or seeing the world from one such perspective. As we have learned, he is a materialist which means that he sees the world by production and consumption but that is only one ideology of the world. In other words, people who are let's say idealists may see the world differently including why people act in the way they act. As a result of this, what makes one theorist more correct about the world than the other? While in science, no matter how many times they perform an experience, they will eventually get the same results as long as they hold certain things constant. Although I'm sure that there are still scientific theories that are up for debate, but relatively its findings (regarding their laws) are less disputed between scientists such as the laws of gravity.

It is interesting to see how people generally understand the research of science and sociology differently. A lot of people often view the quantitative research methods are more scientific than the qualitative research methods. I think one of the reasons of this difference is that some people confuse the study of imprecise subject matter with the imprecise study of subjects. Social research is not like science that can always be proved by all numerical evidences, and it is more complex in different settings. The social facts can be influenced by various factors, and they are rarely caused or proved by one specific factor.

I agree on what Jingjing said about people view quantitative research more scientific. But I cannot agree with you on " social research is not like science that can always be proved by all numerical evidence"Durkheim's research on suicide is scientific, and it is not explained in numbers, My interpretation for this is because it is hard for people to operationalization a concept, it required a lot of thinking. Durkheim operationalized suicided by dividing the population into different social groups, also used previous research data, so it is scientific.

I would agree with you Keijing that it is the struggle of operationalizing terms in sociology that creates problems because one of the key points of controversy in sociological studies is that most of the concepts we try to define are very abstract and can be defined differently by different researchers. So reliability of research can be difficult when there are potentially different definitions of a single concept. But it does not mean that there is no way to create numerical data as sociology has moved forward in how it argues certain theories through empirical data but always does note that there is always the potential for outliers.