Is Sociology a Mickey Mouse degree?

In what sense isn't it a science? Plenty of institutions offer BSc degrees in Sociology.

In comparison to biology and chemistry it seems so far apart from them.

It's a bridge between history and politics, not scientific subjects that have cause and effect- hence why positivists, most of the time, fail to explain the patterns of society.

But nutritional science is pretty "far apart" from physics - doesn't mean it's not science.




Well, how are you defining "science"? If a sociologist is using the scientific method, then in my mind they are doing science. If not, not. As it happens sociologists do employ the scientific method. Hence they do science.

Sure it's less objective than, for example, chemistry and physics... but does that make it "less scientific"? Perhaps not.

"Far apart" -It's a metaphor ... Like the spectrum of the levels of explanation.

With physics, you don't have to explain as much as you do in sociology - thus, sociology is less scientific than physics. May I also add that sociology is the study of society and people. To apply a scientific method to people is hard because people are unpredictable and complex. I define science as an objective measurable subject. In which sociology has failed time and time again to quantify its findings that can be replicated... so it's a weak social science in my eyes.

Well, physics is by definition the stsociologistndamental laws and nature of reality... so any theory of everything in physics necessarily explains more than something in sociology. The explanations are just further "down the ladder", as it were. But I don't think being further down the ladder of explanation necessarily makes sociology less scientific than physics.

Applying the scientific method to society and people may be hard - and you get far less reliable/representative results in general - but you are still using the scientific method. Hence, in my mind, you are still doing science! Perhaps you're right about objectivity though. I readily concede that sociology is more subjective than "hard science", and I suppose objectivity is not an unreasonable element to demand of a science.

Yes, but physics doesn't need thousands of words to explain a topic or theory. Sociology is excessively subjective at times, especially interpretivists, which, to me, reminds me of a humanities subject. (History). So yes, I think it is less scientific than physics. Physics is reliable and applicable- sociology? No; society is changing rapidly- so how can we come up with a sociological theory, test it with scientific principles, and expect replicable results like physics can? We simply can't. It doesn't have the rigour that physics has because society is ever-changing with different norms and values. And that brings me to another point: it is impossible to measure norms and value because everyone holds different versions.

So do I. But don't you find retaining all the information difficult?

But nutritional science is pretty "far apart" from physics - doesn't mean it's not science.




Well, how are you defining "science"? If a sociologist is using the scientific method, then in my mind they are doing science. If not, not. As it happens sociologists do employ the scientific method. Hence they do science.

Sure it's less objective than, for example, chemistry and physics... but does that make it "less scientific"? Perhaps not.

Have you ever looked at a physics article? I can assure you they aren't exactly short on words and there's lots of equations and stuff too!

But yeah in summary I think the disagreement is one of semantics. If objectivity is a requirement of a science then fair enough - but then you have to concede, for example, that many areas of biology are also less scientific than chemistry. It's a bit of a slippery slope.

I would add, though, that the dynamic nature of society isn't necessarily a problem: sociologists just have to be clear whether they're talking about a theory/model for a specific time or situation or a one that can be generalised!

Depends if you make value judgements or not. Durkheim's work on suicide for example is a highly impressive model of social science, as is some of the work done by the quasi-scientific Marxist historians like Kautsky. As long as social science focuses on what people actually think, instead of what they ought to think it's a science in my view.

Durkheim's work on suicide is not impressive at all because he manipulated the statistics to fit his theory, hahaha

Memorising a bunch of unimportant gibberish and half-assed views is annoying.

How did he manipulate the statistics?

Mickey mouse? every subject is hard in its own way.

^ I think we should all leave it as this ^

Curious.
What counts as a mickey mouse degree?

Is it respectable?
Do employers like the look of it?
Is it easy to get onto the GDL (law conversion course) with a BSc Sociology degree?