The nature of science and the extent to which sociology can be regarded as scientific, including positivism, Popper's falsificationism, Kuhn's paradigms and the realist view of science.

What this dot point is asking

AQA wants you to explain different views of what science is (positivism, Popper, Kuhn, realism) and to evaluate whether sociology can be scientific. The decisive move in a strong answer is to show that the verdict depends entirely on which definition of science you adopt.

The positivist view

Positivists argue sociology can be a science modelled on the natural sciences. Using observation of social facts and the inductive (building laws up from observation) and hypothetico-deductive (testing hypotheses) methods, sociology can discover cause-and-effect laws (Comte, Durkheim). Science is treated as objective, empirical and law-seeking, and Durkheim's study of suicide is the classic attempt to demonstrate that social facts can be studied scientifically.

Popper and falsification

By this standard, Popper argues some sociological theories (such as Marxism and functionalism) are unscientific because they are framed so flexibly that no possible evidence could ever refute them (Marxism explains away its failed predictions). He also criticises induction: no number of confirming observations can prove a theory true, but a single counter-instance can falsify it. More testable sociological claims (for example a specific, refutable hypothesis about achievement) could qualify as scientific.

Kuhn and paradigms

For Kuhn, mature science is "normal science" working puzzle-solving within an accepted paradigm, until accumulated anomalies trigger a crisis and a "scientific revolution" (a paradigm shift). Sociology's lack of a single paradigm means it cannot do normal science in his sense. Ironically, this makes Kuhn's view of science less "objective" than the positivist one, since paradigms shape what counts as evidence.

The realist view

Realists (Keat and Urry, Sayer) argue that science does not only study observable events; much of it studies unobservable underlying structures and mechanisms (gravity, magnetism, sub-atomic particles) inferred from their effects. Since sociology likewise studies unobservable structures (class, patriarchy), it can be scientific. Realists distinguish closed systems (the controlled laboratory, where prediction is possible) from open systems (society, where many variables interact and exact prediction is impossible), so sociology's inability to predict precisely does not make it unscientific, since many accepted sciences (meteorology, seismology) also study open systems.

The interpretivist objection and evaluation

Interpretivists reject the whole project: people have consciousness and free will and act on meanings, unlike the matter studied by natural science, so sociology should aim for verstehen, not scientific laws, and applying scientific methods to people is a category error. The conclusion therefore depends on what "science" means: by the positivist or realist definition sociology can be scientific; by Popper's or Kuhn's criteria it is doubtful; and interpretivists argue it should not even try. The best answers refuse to give a flat yes or no and instead judge by definition.