Sociology Cannot and Should Not Be a Science

'Sociology cannot and should not be a science.' To what extent do sociological arguments and evidence support this view?

According to the Oxford Dictionary, science is defined as: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. By following this definition it could be conceived that sociology can be considered as a scientific discipline. Positivist and interpretivism are the two main theoretical arguments with regard to this issue. The theory of positivism is based on the idea that sociology should be based upon the guidelines of the natural sciences. Whereas the theory of interpretivism would bring about the argument that the knowledge is based on people's interpretations. People's personal opinions would also affect whether they believe that sociological theory can be regarded as a scientific theory as subjects such as psychology and sociology are often regarded as 'people sciences' because they appear to follow some basic guidelines.

Positivists would argue that the methods of the natural sciences are applicable to the study of people within society, and that it will help solve social problems and achieve progress by applying these methods in the same manner as a scientific theory or experiment. They believe that reality is a separate thing existing outside of the mind, so society can be studied objectively as factual reality. A positivist sociologist would use scientific methods such as observations to study the patterns of society, in order to discover the laws that determine how society works. These cause and effect laws can then be used to predict future events and guide social policies made as a result of these predictions and past events. A good example of one such study would be the study that Durkheim carried out on 'Suicide as a Social Fact' in which he used official statistics to investigate what causes a person to commit suicide. He believed that if he could show that there were social patterns and causes applicable to suicide; he would be able to prove sociology as having a scientific guideline.

However, interpretivists would challenge this view as they do not believe that the methods of the natural sciences can be applied to sociology as the studies of people is different; the natural sciences deal with matters that have no consciousness, therefore its behavior and any effects on it is an automatic reaction to external forces. Whereas that is not the case for people. Interpretivists focus on meanings, therefore believing that people have their own internal reactions given to certain situations. Interpretivist sociologists such as Douglas rejected Durkheim's view that suicide is a social fact. He believes that it depends on the internal meanings that would lead to the eventual result of a person committing suicide because it is something that can never be found out as it is impossible to define an exact reason why a person would choose to end their life. Atkinson also agrees with this view, following the ethnomethodogist view of interpretivism and looking at the differences between how coroners define suicide. He also concludes that suicide is a social construct, due to it being due to other people's interpretations and the meanings. Interpretivists do not see sociology as a scientific theory as science deals with laws of cause and effect, whereas sociology would appear to deal with people's meanings, rejecting the use of casual explanations and scientific methods.

When it comes to conducting research interpretivists are more likely to use qualitative data such as personal documents and analysis. For example when the issue of suicide arises, they would require evidence of a suicide note. However, positivists prefer to use quantitative data, such as official statics. So when suicide is considered it cannot be defined as a social fact because people attach their own meanings to make sense