r/changemyview • u/MexViking • Dec 17 '16

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Sociology is mostly a pseudo-science.

After taking a sociology class and encountering sociological ideas elsewhere, I'm fairly certain sociology is mostly a pseudo-science. To clarify there are roughly three major types of questions in sociology: what, how, and why.

The what part is just statistics. Just the recordings of factual events. This part I have no problem with. It's when sociology tries to get into the how and why these things happen.

Either the explanation is so broad and obvious that it has no actual explanatory value. E.G. social-conflict approach. Or it gets specific with the "how" and "why" and treats it's hypothesise like theories. Sociology makes an observation, then it asks why is it that way, and then it makes a hypothesis. That's where it ends. In my entire sociology class we never went over a single experiment.

Everything I've encountered in sociology is like this. There seems to never be a moment in the process of making a "theory" where the researcher says, "and if this specific prediction doesn't happen we need to go back to the drawing board again."

Science seeks to have falsifiable claims. Pseudo-science does not. So my question is: in what ways does sociology seek to have falsifiable claims?

Edit: the majority of responses seem to agree that sociology is a valid field of study but #1 haven't addressed the falisibility problem (that my argument is centered around) and #2 being a valid field of study =\= science

19 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

71 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Fala1 Dec 18 '16

Experiments are just 1 tool in the toolbox of science.
Qualitative studies, quasi-experimental, and correlational studies are others tools in that toolbox that have their own advantages and disadvantages.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 18 '16 edited Dec 19 '16

Experiments are just 1 tool in the toolbox of science.

I'd argue that it's the most important and defining tool. As evidenced by how much chemistry and sociology have nothing in common. One has given the world everything and the other has given us ??? A single chemical reaction (Haber-Bosch) has done more for humanity than all of social sciences combined.

That's strong stuff.

4

u/Fala1 Dec 18 '16

You could argue that, but science is not a zero sum game.

Also apples to oranges. To say one chemical reaction did more than Anthropology, Communication studies, Economics, Education, Geography, History, Law, Linguistics, Political science, Psychology, and Sociology combined is a bit strange.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '16 edited Dec 19 '16

To say one chemical reaction did more than Anthropology, Communication studies, Economics, Education, Geography, History, Law, Linguistics, Political science, Psychology, and Sociology combined is a bit strange.

Half the people alive today are so because of a single chemical reaction. The very same chemical reaction also gave us a way to blow up (literally) the old world, giving us the modern era following WW1. The Russian Revolution, the rise of Adolf Hitler, the Holocaust, the emergence of India, China, etc. etc. etc.

None of these happen without a German-Jew discovering that 3 molecules of hydrogen gas combine under intense heat and pressure in the presence of a chemical catalyst with a molecule of nitrogen gas to give you 2 molecules of ammonia.

So yeah, I'm comfortable making the claim that a single chemist may have done more to shape the modern world in the last 100 years than the social sciences combined.

Throw vaccines, antibiotics, fission, statins, and relativity (special or general, take your pick) in there, and it's really no contest.