Evidence and proof

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.