There is a big debate surrounding the naming of Sociology as a science - back in the nineteenth century when Sociology was just beginning there was the advantage of being taken 'seriously' as science in a time where scientific thinking was taking precedence over other ways of observing the world. (Modernity)

Science tests hypotheses (ideas) through experiments and observation (sound familiar?)
Scientists should be objective - theories based on evidence collected logically. Evidence which can be checked and rechecked with the same results.

Positivists?

Logical positivists: researcher observes, finds something to explain - hypothesises about what is observed, tests the hypothesis. Verification!
Agree = scientific law
Disagree = amend, test until agreement!

Popper = falsification; don't try to prove something true - it's impossible to be 100% correct. BUT find one piece of evidence to contradict the hypothesis and you've proved it untrue. Cannot have absolute truth. All swans are white...or are they?

Kuhn = paradigms. Scientists make assumptions based on what is known (or assumed); progress happens when new information becomes so overwhelming it can't be ignored. Scientific revolutions - earth circling the sun etc.

Popper says NO, sociological concepts can't be proved wrong = therefore not science

Kuhn says NO, no consensus to create a paradigm of understanding.

Objectivity = same knowledge no matter your point of view. There are objective methods - how many can you remind yourself of? Objective methods tend to be value free, lacking in bias.

Subjectivity = dependent on view point. Can't easily test data gathered through subjective methods (how many can you think of?). Requires interpretation.

Lyotard (postmodernist) knowledge is constructed not in anyway objective.

Sociology = quite subjective.

think you can be objective and analyse social facts.

Social facts can be directly observed and measured - educational achievement, marriage/divorce rates etc.

Quantitative methods to seek correlations or cause/effect

much more subjective - methods are qualitative to understand individuals - Weber and verstehen

Sociology CAN be scientific...BECAUSE

Closed systems = chemistry, controlled variables
vs.
Open systems = meteorology where variables cannot be controlled.

Sayer (1984) - sociology is studying an open system

Use both quantitative and qualitative methods - science has always studied what cannot be directly observed

Science is the search for underlying causes...

Can't be value-free, but can try to present data clearly and neutrally.