1 / 10

Debate on Traditional Science Definition in Sociology: Realists vs. Positivists

Explore the ongoing debate regarding whether Natural Scientists adhere to the traditional definition of science. Contributors include Kaplan, Lynch, Kuhn, and Gomm, discussing objectivity, value-free research, paradigms, and cause-and-effect systems. Criticisms from Kaplan, Lynch, and Gomm challenge the views, while Realists argue for a new definition centered on the systematic study of cause and effect. Has the contemporary debate altered perceptions on whether Sociology qualifies as a science? Evaluate the arguments to gain insights.

clarkwilliams
Download Presentation

Debate on Traditional Science Definition in Sociology: Realists vs. Positivists

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Con Sociology and Science tem por deb ary ate

  2. Do Natural Scientists actually follow the Traditional Definition of Science Philosophy of Science Methods Yes No Yes No

  3. Kaplan, Natural Scientists, Gomm. The following are contributors to this debate. Put them into the correct position on the one page summary from the previous slide. Kuhn, Realists Positivists, Lynch

  4. Do Natural Scientists actually follow the Traditional Definition of Science Philosophy of Science Methods Yes No Yes No Realists Positivists & Natural Scientists Kaplan, Lynch, Kuhn, Gomm. Positivists & Natural Scientists

  5. PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE What do the critics of this view put forward to challenge these views Kaplan- Reconstructed Logics, Logics In Use Lynch- Artefacts Gomm-Social Context Of Science We already know what Natural scientists and Positivists believe in relation to Scientists being objective and value-free. Kuhn-Paradigms

  6. A Simple But Important Question Can Any Scientist Be Completely Objective And Value-Free In The Way They Approach Their Research? Evaluate

  7. METHODOLOGY But what about the Realist views 1) Open/Closed Systems 2) Cause and Effect Again we know what the views of Positivists and Natural Scientists on this issue

  8. So, how convincing are the points put forward by the Realists? Evaluate their arguments. If we accept that the Traditional Definition of Science is not an accurate definition of how Science is carried out we need a new definition. Try and write a new definition of Science.

  9. If no one can be completely objective and value-free then there is no place for that in our definition. In essence Realists would argue that Science is merely ‘ the systematic study of cause and effect’

  10. So we can now return to our original question, ‘Is Sociology a Science’ What were the main arguments put forward originally to say it couldn’t be a Science Have the arguments put forward in the contempory debate changed your view of the original evaluation. Evaluate

More Related