Social Science's Are Not A Science!
Scroll to see replies
Original post by mathew551
I'd hate to think what Mathematics does to Physics in its spare time.
Very true!
Original post by Oh my Ms. Coffey
personal interest, that disapated as I realised psychology at AS is so Micky mouse
End of thread.
Have you actually studied Psychology further than GCSE? If not, then you have zero right to comment.
There's a lot of chemistry and biology included- along with loads of different theories. And seeing as even a lot of the top universities class it as a BSc degree- I think that proves it.
I can only assume this was an attempt to troll- well done, you got the red gems you were after.
There's a lot of chemistry and biology included- along with loads of different theories. And seeing as even a lot of the top universities class it as a BSc degree- I think that proves it.
I can only assume this was an attempt to troll- well done, you got the red gems you were after.
isn't Economics classed as a social science...in which case...F U Biatch!!!
Original post by Oh my Ms. Coffey
Seriously, Psychology and sociology are not a science, standing around outside Mcdonalds with a clip board asking about dreams is so unscientific.
Someone came through a Middle Class Grammar school. Forget AS psychology, if you actually talked to someone competent with a PhD in psychology you'd realise there are a lot of options, one I know earns £34/hr and that is just a part time lecturing job 2 days a week. That's 8 hours a day, 37 weeks at least per year. You do the math.
(edited 13 years ago)
Psychology and psychiatry often do mixed research together, so there is definitely a blurring of lines, especially when you reach PhD psychology level.
As for sociology, I've never studied it, so can't really say either way.
I don't see why it makes much of a difference... calling something a "science" doesn't automatically make it a more difficult subject.
"A rose by any other name..?"
As for sociology, I've never studied it, so can't really say either way.
I don't see why it makes much of a difference... calling something a "science" doesn't automatically make it a more difficult subject.
"A rose by any other name..?"
Original post by Hylean
None of those subjects actually study society, so it's already doing something that those subjects don't do on their own or working with each other. English Literature makes uses of all the same disciplines, but I doubt you would argue it shouldn't be a subset of the others.
English Literature is different as, even when English Literature uses facts as its inspiration (which it doesn't have to do, other than by using a generally agreed structure of sentences) it doesn't have to be factual itself. English Literature can be written by someone who is not knowingly making any reference to any political, historical or economic point even if they seem to unavoidably/ accidentally do so. A story set under the sea, for example.
If Politics is a study of the blueprint of a way of living that some societies and some noted individuals or noted groups of individuals have discussed and used and History is a study of what some societies and some noted individuals or noted groups of individuals have done then is Sociology a study of what the majority do?
The distinction seems to be less about how different Sociology is from those other disciplines than from who it concentrates on.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Picnic1
English Literature is different as, even when English Literature uses facts as its inspiration (which it doesn't have to do, other than by using a generally agreed structure of sentences) it doesn't have to be factual itself. English Literature can be written by someone who is not knowingly making any reference to any political, historical or economic point even if they seem to unavoidably/ accidentally do so. A story set under the sea, for example.
If Politics is a study of the blueprint of a way of living that some societies and some noted individuals or noted groups of individuals have discussed and used and History is a study of what some societies and some noted individuals or noted groups of individuals have done then is Sociology a study of what the majority do?
The distinction seems to be less about how different Sociology is from those other disciplines than from who it concentrates on.
If Politics is a study of the blueprint of a way of living that some societies and some noted individuals or noted groups of individuals have discussed and used and History is a study of what some societies and some noted individuals or noted groups of individuals have done then is Sociology a study of what the majority do?
The distinction seems to be less about how different Sociology is from those other disciplines than from who it concentrates on.
History is the study of things that have happened. Politics is the study of political structures, how they function, their aims, etc. and the ideologies.
Sociology is the study of society, how it affects us, its differing structures across cultures, changes in society, etc. I'm not a Sociologist, so I can't go into much detail on it.
History doesn't study society, though it may provide illumination on older societies and how they've changed. Politics only studies how we rule ourselves, which does not necessarily have much to do with society as a phenomenon.
Have a wee gander.
I wasn't speaking of English Literature from an author's viewpoint, silly: I was speaking of it as an academic discipline, where students, or lecturers, analyse books and poems in various ways: historical context, political beliefs, psychological methods, cultural beliefs, etc.
Original post by mathew551
I agree with you here. Despite Kuhn arguing that a science should have a dominant paradigm, there are numerous approaches in psychology, each favouring differing paradigms.
The biological approach, which assumes that there are biological bases to human behaviour (e.g. genetic inheritance, biochemistry and brain structure) favours more scientific research methodologies such as brain scans and twin studies.
On the flipside you have the psychodynamic approach which assumes that most human behaviour is driven by unconscious forces, and that childhood has a significant impact on adult behaviour. This approach favours case studies as its research methodology and Freud often used this approach, i.e. dream analysis which you mentioned.
There are concerns about psychology not being objective as voiced by Popper. However, the more scientific psychologists do use the double blind procedure and strive to increase inter-rater reliability, and they do follow the deductive model by generating a theory, from which hypotheses that are drawn can be tested using a tightly controlled experiment from which empirical data is gathered and analysed statistically.
Anyway, should psychology aim to be a science? It is difficult to explain human behaviour and experience in terms of scientific phenomena alone. Human experiences are at times difficult to subjective to scientific laws and principles and at times might be too reductionist to study human behaviour in laboratory conditions via the manipulation of the IV and the measurement of the DV to generate laws that apply to all as this ignores the rich complexity of human experiences, which might at times be better studied via the alternative, less scientific methodology, such as the case study.
The biological approach, which assumes that there are biological bases to human behaviour (e.g. genetic inheritance, biochemistry and brain structure) favours more scientific research methodologies such as brain scans and twin studies.
On the flipside you have the psychodynamic approach which assumes that most human behaviour is driven by unconscious forces, and that childhood has a significant impact on adult behaviour. This approach favours case studies as its research methodology and Freud often used this approach, i.e. dream analysis which you mentioned.
There are concerns about psychology not being objective as voiced by Popper. However, the more scientific psychologists do use the double blind procedure and strive to increase inter-rater reliability, and they do follow the deductive model by generating a theory, from which hypotheses that are drawn can be tested using a tightly controlled experiment from which empirical data is gathered and analysed statistically.
Anyway, should psychology aim to be a science? It is difficult to explain human behaviour and experience in terms of scientific phenomena alone. Human experiences are at times difficult to subjective to scientific laws and principles and at times might be too reductionist to study human behaviour in laboratory conditions via the manipulation of the IV and the measurement of the DV to generate laws that apply to all as this ignores the rich complexity of human experiences, which might at times be better studied via the alternative, less scientific methodology, such as the case study.
In my opinion psychology is a science, but it's often dismissed as not being one because there's no ''clear'' answers and because some people view it as ''soft''.
However I think people who dismiss it as not being a science based on the former are quite ignorant. There's no way we can gain concrete knowledge of human behaviour because every human is different. If we could accumulate evidence that was absolute then the human race would be screwed. It's the individual varitations that has alllowed the human race to survive.
In terms of psychology being viewed ''soft''; it's completely subjective. You could argue because we are studying our own species and behaviours we come into contact everyday it's a subject we have the most natural knowledge of.
Original post by Retrospect
Ignoring the trolling... 
It depends on your definition of 'science'. A general example - a sociologist may use scientific methods to study social phenomena. Does that not make his study of sociology 'scientific'?
You totally study AQA Psychology, don't you?
It depends on your definition of 'science'. A general example - a sociologist may use scientific methods to study social phenomena. Does that not make his study of sociology 'scientific'?
You totally study AQA Psychology, don't you?
Maybe.
Social sciences are sciences in that they use some scientific methodologies to prove their theories. However, they are not pure sciences, in that they do not have one definitive answer for example:
Chemistry: Assign these structures to a point group
Sociology: Critically consider the argument for and against social work practice being based on research evidence. To what extent might this undermine social workers’ discretion to select and apply theories? Answer with reference to the Department of Health’s guidance on assessing children in need.
So with the chemistry question, there is only going to be one correct answer, whereas the sociology question doesn't have one distinct answer, it's all about structuring an arguement and drawing a conclusion, but it does still involve some interpretation of data
Chemistry: Assign these structures to a point group
Sociology: Critically consider the argument for and against social work practice being based on research evidence. To what extent might this undermine social workers’ discretion to select and apply theories? Answer with reference to the Department of Health’s guidance on assessing children in need.
So with the chemistry question, there is only going to be one correct answer, whereas the sociology question doesn't have one distinct answer, it's all about structuring an arguement and drawing a conclusion, but it does still involve some interpretation of data
Original post by Oh my Ms. Coffey
im sure there is some psychological bull**** to how it does.
you seem cognitively unstable
Social Scientists do not regard themselves as Natural Scientists.
They are not trying to compete with natural science in the way they study things.
A social scientists ontology and epistemology is completely different do that of a natural scientist, hence why they choose to look at the areas they study, in the way they do.
Furthermore, Social Science is actually described as being the link between the contenious divide of science v humanties and does not claim to fall ino either camp.
So stop asking such stupid questions.
They are not trying to compete with natural science in the way they study things.
A social scientists ontology and epistemology is completely different do that of a natural scientist, hence why they choose to look at the areas they study, in the way they do.
Furthermore, Social Science is actually described as being the link between the contenious divide of science v humanties and does not claim to fall ino either camp.
So stop asking such stupid questions.
Original post by Hylean
Personally I'm finding my Social Sciencey degree scientific enough for my humanities based brain.
This thread is now about Panda dogs!
Is it a dog, is it a panda? Only Science can tell us the answers.
This thread is now about Panda dogs!
Is it a dog, is it a panda? Only Science can tell us the answers.
three pages later and the question hasn't been answered
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Social science degrees?
- What can you do with a sociology degree?
- Sociology as a science
- Can i do radiographer degree with health and social care btect level 3
- Social and health care or applied science is better in level 3
- is English lit a good a level if i want to study psychology at uni?
- social or human science?
- Health and social btec
- KCL or Queen Mary’s UCAS
- What subjects do you need for a radiography degree?
- Social Sciences at Cardiff
- Can you do nursing with BTEC Applied Science?
- HELP
- Global health and social Science Kings kcl
- MSc Data Science
- options
- MA Big Data at KCL vs MSc Social Research Methods LSE
- Universities and Social Sciences
- Transferring from health and social care to biological science.
- international student clearing
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
