Is Sociology a Mickey Mouse degree? Watch

frances98
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 years ago
#21
Yes.
0
reply
CharlotteJane45
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 years ago
#22
(Original post by Implication)
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.
0
reply
Implication
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 years ago
#23
(Original post by CharlotteJane45)
In comparison to biology and chemistry it seems so far apart from them.
But nutritional science is pretty "far apart" from physics - doesn't mean it's not science.


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.
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.
0
reply
CharlotteJane45
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 years ago
#24
(Original post by Implication)
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.
0
reply
Implication
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 years ago
#25
(Original post by CharlotteJane45)
"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 study of the fundamental 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.
0
reply
CharlotteJane45
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 years ago
#26
(Original post by Implication)
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.

Yeah. I agree with you that you're still doing science when sociologists carry out the scientific method, definitely.

And absolutely, objectivity is crucial for both physicists and sociologists.
0
reply
Implication
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 years ago
#27
(Original post by CharlotteJane45)
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.
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!
0
reply
whorace
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 years ago
#28
(Original post by CharlotteJane45)
So do I. But don't you find retaining all the information difficult?
Memorising a bunch of unimportant gibberish and half-assed views is annoying.
0
reply
whorace
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 years ago
#29
(Original post by Implication)
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.
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.
0
reply
CharlotteJane45
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#30
Report 4 years ago
#30
(Original post by Implication)
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!
Yeah they do have a lot of words paha :P It's an hard debate to be honest, I think there is no wrong or right answer,

And psychology is less scientific than biology... It's a hierarchy of 'scientific rigour' as it is.

If it's a specific theory for a specific time we can't retest it... so some would say (not necessarily me personally) if we can't falsify it, then it's not a scientific paradigm/hypothesis/theory or whatever. Now generalisation is more of a stronger sociological theory... but then again.. how many sociologists have been able to generalise a theory on society consistently and been able to prove it?

Gah! Haha )
0
reply
CharlotteJane45
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#31
Report 4 years ago
#31
(Original post by whorace)
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
0
reply
whorace
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#32
Report 4 years ago
#32
(Original post by CharlotteJane45)
Durkheim's work on suicide is not impressive at all because he manipulated the statistics to fit his theory, hahaha
How did he manipulate the statistics?
0
reply
CharlotteJane45
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#33
Report 4 years ago
#33
(Original post by whorace)
Memorising a bunch of unimportant gibberish and half-assed views is annoying.
Yes! Ha ha
0
reply
CharlotteJane45
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#34
Report 4 years ago
#34
(Original post by whorace)
How did he manipulate the statistics?
He lied. My sociology teacher told us - and I don't doubt her for one second because she has a masters in sociology.
0
reply
SarcasticMel
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#35
Report 4 years ago
#35
Well it depends. Is it relevant to your future career path? If not, why study it?

I actually like some of the issues and questions sociologists tackle, but being from an economics background yea, the sociology lacks the same kind of mathematical/statistical rigor.

But that doesn't make it Mickey Mouse imo.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
German123
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#36
Report 4 years ago
#36
Mickey mouse? every subject is hard in its own way.
0
reply
CharlotteJane45
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#37
Report 4 years ago
#37
(Original post by German123)
Mickey mouse? every subject is hard in its own way.
^ I think we should all leave it as this ^
1
reply
Tai Ga
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#38
Report 4 years ago
#38
yup
0
reply
German123
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#39
Report 4 years ago
#39
(Original post by CharlotteJane45)
^ I think we should all leave it as this ^
0
reply
miacat
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#40
Report 4 years ago
#40
(Original post by scrunkie)
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?
I always thought Sociology was good as a degree from a good university, not one of the poly's. But I can't claim to be very educated in the matter
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (16)
6.93%
They might tell the bully (25)
10.82%
I don't think they'd understand (39)
16.88%
It might lead to more bullying (80)
34.63%
There's nothing they could do (71)
30.74%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed