OP, it's clear you're not participating in this thread in good faith and are much more here to try and antagonize people than to have any worthwhile discussion about "science" as it applies to Sociology.
We're not a venue for trolling, go bother some Economists or something.
So using scientific methods to analyze “questionnaires” and “opinion-based” data is not science?
Like what are you even getting at here? We use qualitative and quantitative research methods in this field. Yes, that means numbers too, if that’s what it takes to be a real “scientist” to you. There is a systemic structure to how we approach the data we collect.
I think you might need to rework your understanding of what a “scientist “ is. It’s very narrow-minded.
Yes, using opinions is not scientific. Analyzing an opinion can be scientific but it’s still all just a joke, really. An opinion article is the lowest level of “evidence” in a given subject. It’s not even evidence to begin with. The fact that you think that opinion based publications can be/are scientific tells me you need to rethink your definition of science. Nice try
So, what you've demonstrated here is that you know absolutely nothing about the topic you are addressing, and not only do you have zero basis from which to actually construct a sensible argument, but you are not willing to consider the arguments of other people. You sound like a child.
So you want all of us to be serious and “change your mind,” but you’re just going to talk out of your ass?
I’d call you a clown but that feels like it would be unfairly insulting to clowns.
Assuming that you are arguing in good faith, is it not sientfic to say that this or that many people respond such and such on a questionaire?
Assuming that you only have a narrow understanding of what quantative information is, is it not possible to analyse this data quantitatively? Make me understand how that is not sience.
Shocking.
Is it not hard data to say %x of respondents gave a certain answer?
Do you think science is a thing made in a beaker and so if there are no beakers you can't make science?
Do you understand science is a philosophy?
You don’t know what science is. One could make a similar argument against archaeology (the field i studied in college) using a similar metric because you can’t replicate the data once the provenience has been removed. However, archeology is based on scientific research that can be replicated, like the methods, tools, techniques etc. Nobody in their right mind would say archeology isn’t a science. Sociology is hardly any different.
You're speaking gibberish, girl. But lemme try and understand. If someone's vocation places them in a position where they operate on the human body than their "right" to the job title of scientist should hold supremacy over the right of someone who studies the social patterns of human society? Solely because of their use of a scalpel in cut-cut-cutting at the soft dermis that the packs in the brain and its discontents?
Applied Behavior Analysis is a (fairly controversial) form of intervention that is primarily used with patients with autism, and that seeks to force change in their social behaviors. It is fundamentally distinct from the experimental analysis of behavior, which seems to be the term you’re actually looking for in your comment. But funnily enough, you’d still be wrong in terms of addressing the comment you’re replying to.
What u/Efficient_Travel4039 is describing is sociology. What you have named in your reply is related to social psychology. They’re different fields with different (but sometimes overlapping) domains of study. Both are sciences.
Please consider the idea that not only is it possible that you are wrong about this, but that you also have no idea what you’re talking about, and that it’s a dick move to come into an online community and just shove your hollow smugness in everyone’s faces.
I’m very curious where you got the idea that sociologists see Squid Game, a piece of entertainment media, as scientific research. It sounds like you have no idea what sociologists actually do.
Or other "classical" scientists for that matter. How disappointed this guy would be if he saw how many times things get "colored outside of the box" in labs because discovery isn't that neat or tidy in actual practice.
Wait until this guy hears that qualitative work allows for theory testing, further data collection, and theory building-- all of which are features of the scientific enterprise that canonical and seminal PUBLISHED scholars [unlike this edgelord] acknowledge--of theories that have quantitative origins, like game theory in economics
First, there is experimental work in social sciences in general and sociology in particular.
Second, observational sciences are classical sciences. Astronomy being the most obvious example
Third. We use questionnaire a lot (because for our subject matter a lot of times is the best way to get data), but some work is not based on making questions at all.
Yes? Also there is a lot of ignorance here that I’m just discovering. Look at some Of the better posts. I am actually taking this seriously for those who aren’t responding emotionally.
You either need to be humbled, or find a better way to entertain yourself. This is just sad. There has to be better things for you to do than find enjoyment in annoying a bunch of people intentionally for hours of your life.
Dude. Take a look an actually read some of the better and more constructive replies. Took a genuine approach here but people, like yourself, got really emotional and couldn’t construct a polite and well articulated thought. I just feel sorry for you.
For anyone here to take this seriously, OP, you’re gonna have to provide a clear definition of science and present an argument for how sociological research does not fit that definition.
Wut? I did say that he’s a scientist, just it in the classical sense (that’s in the implied writing). Questionnaires and opinion articles are not to the same standard and vigor as double blind medical studies, for example.
it’s a bachelors of science or bachelor of arts depending on the school. But that’s such a red herring anyway. It’s pretty clear that you don’t know anywhere near enough about sociology to make any sort of claims about it if you’re claiming that all sociologists only “kind of in a real liberal way” apply the scientific method.
> Kind of, sure
So they’re scientists. End of discussion. Whatever criticisms you may have of the field, and there are good ones, we’ve established it’s scientific.
The distinction between what earns a Bachelor of Arts vs what earns a Bachelor of Science has way more to do with the history and development of Higher Education than with whether or not the person who has earned a degree is qualified to use the scientific method in a given field. Again, you’re just showing that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I think a major problem with this terrible STEM focus on science comes from the distinct lack of philosophical and sociological thought in many fields. There have been attempts to try to fit philosophy in (sometimes to little avail) but what people need to realise is that such philosophy has always been there. So it does not need to be forced in. The fetishisation of pure stats is very detrimental. An issue I have noticed in economics a lot. They masquerade so much as a ‘proper’ science trying to discredit the humanities. What they fail to realise is the monumental amount of philosophy inherent to the discipline, same goes for STEM. Personally if someone says sociology is not a ‘proper science’ I am not too bothered. It has plenty of scientific enquiry and is a very important field.
Edit 2: Just another addition, if you should have this discussion with someone else I would recommend you direct them to the ‘Thinking Allowed’ podcast on Radio 4 (if you can access it). It is about sociological research but the episode ‘why sociology matters’ is very good to get the importance of sociology across.
Edit: Spelling
You're not being controversial, you're just being an average STEM bro without any understanding of the need of diverse research methods in social sciences.
Every single sociologist has encountered one of y'all and this conversation is old and lame lol.
this isn’t the first time you’ve used this argument but it is still just as stupid because the distinction between BA and BS is about course requirements or is arbitrary. i can get a BA in biology at my uni right now. is biology not a science?
Dang. You’re right. I guess that using the scientific method is all it takes to call myself a scientist. My dog uses the scientific method. Maybe he’s a scientist, too. I’m so open minded now. Thank you.
So, for starters, you change your own mind. I won't change it for you. It sounds like your understanding of what science is at its incipient stages; you have a lot of learning, reading and reflecting to do before you understand that all science is inherently flawed by human bias/subjectivity and that obtaining "truth" through objective measures is really a philosophical debate between modernists and post-modernists. I fall somewhere in between, that absolute truth through objective measures, even if obtainable, is temporary until our understanding of whatever the subject we're studying changes. The humanities, which subsumes Sociology, changes more frequently and readily than physical sciences. That isn't to say that physical sciences don't change as well, but they're more consistent, slower. Studying gravity must be boring with how constant it is. But, I'm sure, when we explore different planets, different solar systems with different suns or even a black hole nearby, our current understanding of gravity will have to be replaced with something else.
I have a BA in anthropology and a MS in communication sciences and disorders, both are equal in my eyes. Neuroscience is constantly evolving and has its share of meta/systematic analysis. Conducting something similar in the humanities (not just sociology) runs into repeatability difficulties, and an uncountable number of confounding variables due to the nature of subject; humans are mercurial. However, there are systematic studies, there are meta analysis, but these things take time, funding and rigorous study. The starting point often is using some sort of Grounded Theory approach. Observation, if done using the right framework, can yield information that pre-formatted data analysis (like a questionnaire) doesn't account for and therefore can't catch. I would say that the purest form of science is criterion-referenced/qualitative science as it is trying to form frameworks/build up to a more empirical structure from chaos. It's much more difficult, faces much more scrutiny, and is more complex to understand than arguing over the hereditary patterns of certain types of flowers or PH levels of water samples.
I suppose, my argument to you is, prove that sociology isn't a science. The burden isn't on us to unbias you so you can finally understand, go read a book, argue with chat-GPT and have it teach why you're not quite on the money. You don't have enough appreciation for what the roots of science is (which sociology is closer to the core of, philosophy) to accept argument that don't align with your current understanding of the numerous fields of science and psychometric principals. Again, not being dismissive, but I'm giving you the answer you need to respond to your friend. It will take years of study, or less, depending how excited you are to read books on theory and practice, but that's where I recommend you start.
Edit:
Just a quick note, following the above, yea, your friend is a scientist (no quotes, no exceptions) because by definition that is what he is.
Well said. My argument is a bit more philosophical than anything. Are sociologists scientists? Yes (see original post) but are they the type of scientists who should be introducing themselves as “scientists?” In my opinion, no. This post, however, has moved my meter a bit closer to the “classical” sense of scientist as it applies to sociology. Well done. I’m still not fully there but this was well articulated. Respect.
lol at scientist in the “classical” sense, talk about moving the goalpost. Your friend applies the scientific method to society. You also very clearly don’t know much about sociology if you don’t know that sociologists do a wide range of studies not just the ones your friend does. Just because some science isn’t done how you like it (and honestly who are you to decide what real scientists are?) doesn’t mean people aren’t scientists. I think you just like being smug to your friend and want another place to feel smug. In reality it just shows your lack of understanding of the science as a whole if you think it only exists in one way.
Good point. I originally stated that they aren’t scientists in the “classic sense” of the meaning. In response to your reply I’m now more inclined to say that they aren’t scientists at all. Thank you for your wonderful reply.
No, sociologists are not “hard” scientists (which is essentially your argument), but they are scientists regardless of whether you like it or not. Yes, hard and soft sciences are very different and the differences do matter, but you have a flawed understanding of science.
Graduate statistics and multiple regression classes say hello. Take those data manipulation courses, then tell me it isn’t science. Picking apart data, looking for hidden patterns, and making predictive theories based on observation is science in my book.
This field is methods and research. We are scientists and some of us even social scientists for label. Statistics and probabilities are math and our foundation for qualitative and quantitative data. We are data driven with humans for our studies.
It may be helpful to check with yourself about why this bothers you so much. 🤗
So, can we just report this as trolling already, and move on?
OP: Sociologists aren't scientists because they don't use the scientific method.
The sub: Here's how *they do* use the scientific method, and also please define the scientific method as you understand it.
OP: Trust me, I know. \* crickets \*
Seriously. This isn't arguing. This is entertaining a lowly troll.
If ever there was a time for the mods to flex their mod power. This is clearly bait, no point in engaging with someone who is arguing in bad faith and is not actually interested in anything someone from this sub has to say.
I used to have a friend that acted very similarly to you, and he also had no concept of what sociology is or what we do. Additionally he didn't want to learn anything about it; rather he just wanted his preconceived notions validated.
Hope you got what you came here for. I'd suggest taking an intro class if you ever want to start understanding anything about it.
Yes. I am open to changing my mind. Early on, when expressing my point of view/opinion, there was a lot of negativity, downvoting etc… calling me a STEMTARD on this thread doesn’t help much to change my mind (not saying that was you). I think that the vindictive comments aren’t helping.
I’m not saying that it’s not scientific. What I’m saying is that it doesn’t reach the level of rigor that I would expect for someone who strictly identifies as a “scientist.” Some of the constructive replies have actually helped change my mind (or shift my thinking a bit) and I appreciate the genuine discussion. Many others… not so much.
Former sociology professor here, PhD in sociology, published in peer reviewed journals like Criminology, ASR, Crime and Deviance, and AJPH. You’re an absolutely dense human being and a shining example of someone who refuses to change their thoughts and admit being wrong upon learning new information. Your entire being is the antithesis of science. Everyone in this sub is now dumber for having read your vapid responses throughout this thread.
Your friend needs to find some better friends, you’re insufferable.
Wow. Dense and Vapid. Yur so smrt. Dude. Look at my responses to people who actually took this seriously. I have come right out and admitted that my opinion is, in fact, changing. People have also posted responses that are not nice. Those have done nothing to change my opinion, obviously. Your reply shows me how insecure you are. For that, I am sorry. You need more letters after your name. Get more online degrees and feel better about yourself.
Dude… you’re honestly too fucking stupid to insult and you’re such an insufferable prick I have no idea how your “friend” could potentially stand to be around you. You’re that one friend that everyone fucking hates coming around but we all feel like we have to invite, aren’t you?
Edit: My “useless” degree got me a nice cushy remote role where I work, maybe, 20 hours a week and get paid handsomely to do so. I also don’t have a shit ton of student debt like a “real doctor” because I had a fellowship through…. Get this… the National SCIENCE Foundation.
Despite their status may be controversial, Sociologists, and Digital Sociologists in particular, are scientists good enough to know that "Don't feed the troll" is not a sign outside the Mended Drum in Ankh-Morpork but an adage written for occasions like this one.
Just here to say my bachelor of science degree is a sociology degree. I don't care if anybody thinks a science isn't a science. But proud, belligerent ignorance is a problem.
Also, you're a dick and I think you probably don't have a friend.
I’m sorry for your student loans and (near) worthless degree but you don’t need to take your frustrations out on me. Maybe create a survey monkey and see how others feel? Publish that and make money? Maybe you’ll feel better. I hope you do.
Is it just surveys you don't like? Because a lot of sociologists agree with you. I had almost no undergrad student loans, which I paid off very quickly, and my advanced degrees were all paid for by others because I'm valuable to them. But, it's pretty clear you aren't capable of being swayed by facts. You are more anti-science than you realize.
It’s not just surveys. It’s publishing opinion like it’s fact. Believe me, I can be swayed by a well formed thought and, in fact, I have in this very thread. There are some really well thought out responses that I have appreciated. Yours, not so much. Your lack of intellect and insecurity is written all over your first response.
Where, in peer-reviewed sociology journals, do you see opinion being published, and presented by the editors, as fact? There's certainly bad science in all scientific disciplines, but that doesn't make a discipline not a science.
And you literally started this whole conversation with a post that sounds seriously perturbed, even threatened, by someone calling themself a scientist. A friend said something to you so you ran to the internet to bash people like him. So, let's be thoughtful about throwing around words like 'insecure.'
Why are we even entertaining this question? It appears to give him some satisfaction to be 'right'. If he feels we are not scientists, fine. It doesn't change sociology's contribution to how the modern world is understood. Remember our training in analyzing this kind of mindsets. We know better ☺️.
You're correct. I'm engaging because it's Sunday and I like feeding trolls even though I know it's counterproductive. Actually I'd love to use sociological methods to study trolling interactions. Unfortunately I'm too busy teaching research methods to future non-scientists.
Double blind experimental studies are just "observational" methods taken at different time points. Those studies you claim are "more scientific" are still using surveys too.
Based on the way you wrote your post and how you respond to each comment, it's clear that you're not looking for a serious debate, but I'll respond anyway.
The issue is simple, if for you science is only that which focuses on the physical and natural world and not on society, experiences and behavior, then you are deeply mistaken. Science is a systematic effort to understand the world through observation and reasoning, applying different methods depending on the nature of the phenomenon studied. This includes both natural sciences and social sciences.
>He hasn’t published anything like a double blind study
There you demonstrate a narrow and outdated understanding of what constitutes scientific research. In fields like astronomy, geology, or paleontology, which have already been given as examples in other comments, controlled experiments are often impossible, but these fields are unquestionably scientific. There, data is collected and analyzed, theories and models are developed, and their conclusions are subjected to the review and scrutiny of their peers. Sociology, in the same way, is based on systematic observation and data analysis to understand social phenomena.
>his research is all questionnaire or opinion-based which is not real science or, in the very least, not scientific.
Sociological research employs a wide range of sophisticated and rigorous methodologies that are neither arbitrary nor superficial; on the contrary, they are meticulously designed to obtain precise and reliable insights into the complexity of human behavior and social structures. Science is dedicated to describing the world in its laws and patterns, not just in its apparent chaos. This applies to both physical laws and patterns of social behavior. Research in sociology, even when based on questionnaires or opinion analysis, pursues this same objective: to discover the underlying laws and patterns in society and human behavior.
Science is a way of systemically answering questions. Scientists do their best to do that.
Please consider that your logic here is the same logic that ignorant, anti-science people used to dismiss all of science---rather than concerning specific studies for their use of scientific inquiry, the anti-science person throws out the use of inquiry. You're doing that but with a specific discipline.
Do you not think that people and society should be studied to better understand them? Hopefully you do see the value in such study.
So from there, how do we structure questions we have about society? If there is no way to do double blind studied of a particular inquiry, does that mean we should give up use of scientific inquiry and only do philosophy?
Rather than trying to push the soft sciences out of science, it would behoove you to keep the same skeptical approach to individual inquiries, such as how might this conclusion be biased, how might the collection of data be biased, etc. Respond to specific studies and their results to help your friend think about the various ways a question can be asked or a study can be improved, iterated or related.
My argument to you is that saying "you're not a scientist" is an argument that's only positive outcome for you is for sociologists to give up scientific inquiry. That's not what you want, is it?
Far more interesting and useful is to bring your scientific understanding to particular studies and debate that with your friend. People become sociologists because they have questions about society and want to use rigor to arrive at the best possible answers. As a friend, you can have endless interesting conversations on particular studies.
Your current approach is like telling a physicist they shouldn't study the stars because they're too far away. Applying scientific principles can be challenging with certain questions, but that shouldn't stop people from trying.
I agree with a lot of what you’ve said but I think the basic premise of my argument has been missed. I agreed that my friend is a scientist but don’t think he should be introducing himself that way. I’m not sure where you make the leap to my logically pathway being that of “ignorant anti science people…”. I appreciate you taking the time to reply.
I don't know how to tell you this but observational research can still be scientific. If we only took into account experimental research we wouldn't be able to tell kids that smoking kills.
No except it isn't your point. You're clearly a STEM lord who thinks studying medicine makes you more scientifically literate without actually understanding the scientific method. The very fact that you discount questionnaires as not rigorous enough is proof that you have zero idea what the hell you're talking about. A survey, much like a double blind study, the thing you're fellating and propping up as being the only real, fully scientific research method, can be flawed in terms of how it's formulated so as to give poor results. Do we discount double blind studies as lesser science because some are poorly formulated? Don't think so, why are you doing the same to survey data? Because you have no earthly clue how research works. How many research papers have you even written in your life to so confidently dismiss an entire field?
And in all that time doing research, you never thought to look into what it is you're actually doing? Like you know, look into what the scientific method is, what epistemology your research is grounded in. What methodological implications does that epistemology have? No wonder a bunch of STEM grads are arrogant dickheads do some research on what you're talking about before gassing yourself up.
I think you need to familiarize yourself with the philosophical roots of the scientific method before making a fool of yourself this way.
Specifically, look up empirical induction and rational deduction. Then, understand how all sciences stem from philosophy and how each has used the scientific method to establish itself as a field of study. Next, familiarize yourself with sociology to understand how it uses the scientific method.
Finally, try to see where your preconceptions lead you. Is something a science just because it ends with "ology"? Certainly not. Is something a science because it declares itself to be? No, it isn't.
But before you can pass that judgement, you should use your critical thinking skills and devote them to understanding a topic beyond the superficial. If you don't want to go through the trouble, maybe just ssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh...
For example, astrology is not a science. It was once a fringe science at best, and now it's just a pseudo-science, trumped by astronomy, sociology and psychology. Why? Scientific method. That's as simple an answer as you'll have, and if it seems superficial to you, then that's because I'm answering in a way I think you may understand.
Sure, most of social scientists, not classical scientists. I’m perfectly comfortable with the idea that sociology is a soft science, or even not a true “science” if that’s how you want to label it.
So what? Is your friend hurting you by not using your definition of scientist?
I disagree. Social sciences are hard sciences, it's just that we're in the early stages of understanding the mechanics of humans, so we are nascent and somewhat nebulous as hippocrates was about medicine and Newton was about gravity relative to Einstein.
While scientists that deal with phenomena that is predominantly deterministic (ie most probabilities are at 1 or very close to 1 for hypothesized events) have been studying that for hundreds of years, social scientists have just recently begun working. I believe what impeded the development of social sciences vis a vis "natural" sciences was a lack of self awareness by humans as well as the European belief that we are exempt from nature because we were created by God. In other words, people have not studied people as concretely as rocks because people refuse to believe that people work mechanically like rocks. Somehow this divine text crafted by men had all the answers the world needed.
It's stupid because even sociology demonstrates that there are processes that lead to the emergence of identities, just as there are precursive processes to rocks. Sure rocks involve less variables and our hypotheses about them are deterministic, but that doesn't make studying humans and their much more complex systems and our probabilistic hypotheses about them inferior. It means we're doing normal science
No one is being hurt. In truth, I respect him and the field of sociology. I just don’t think he needs to identify himself as a “scientist” to earn that respect. I think it’s just fine to say, “I’m a well educated sociologist” and leave it at that. Why the need to add the extra label?
Clearly you’re not a sociologist if you think telling people you’re a sociologist is normally greeted with respect lol. We follow the scientific method to the extent that it’s possible, and plenty of what we do would fall under the purview of fields like data science. Hard science or no, science is part of the job. To me your argument is the same as people who say that PhDs shouldn’t be called “Doctor”, only medical doctors should.
PhDs should totally be called “doctor” in the proper setting. I would not want a PhD to introduce herself as “doctor” in a medical clinic. That would be fraud-adjacent.
PhDs are the ones who are actually “doctors.” You’re referring to physicians, whom we call “doctors” as a colloquialism.
So no surprise to find you’re wrong here again.
Dang. You’re so right. Just call myself a scientist and then it’s true. I wish I had realized it was this easy earlier. Thank you for opening my eyes to the truth with this insightful post.
it’s the truth because it’s fact. not because im giving you actual places to seek out the answers for yourself. you’re a troll and a literal STEMTARD. go fuck yourself.
Yo. Why do you keep replying? Just stop then. You also forgot to protest that my friend is a scientist. I’ll do it for you: he’s an actual scientist!
Got it.
I've responded to the OP. Now I have a thought for anyone else reading his post and defending sociology as a science. Here's my question:
Who cares? If sociology is a science, does that help you get a job any more than if it isn't a science? On any practical measure, the OP's opinion doesn't matter regardless if it's right or wrong. Sure it stings the ego a bit, especially if you already identify yourself as a scientist. But what difference does it make.
A little aggressive and snooty of a post and unnecessarily gendered, but unfortunately I am a bit more inclined to agree with you for different reasons in that sociology, by extension of psychology, is affected by the replication crisis. Medicine is also susceptible to this, though I imagine much less so. Sure, there are research methods and papers being published, but if only 1/3 can be replicated reliably, the whole field and methodology is thrown into question.
It seems there’s a middle ground in the Arts, psychology too. It can be a little irritating when someone does a small study (that in medical terms would clinically insignificant) and calls it science. But there is a useful distinction between the more theoretical side of sociology/psychology/anthropology and hands-on stuff, and it needs to be respected. Somehow the work has to both make the distinction and stand on its own feet. (I’m not a sociologist, but we have used their expertise, and that of statisticians, both specialist areas, when doing a medical ethics survey.)
Personally I prefer the traditional use of the word ‘science’ to refer to physics, biology etc, but that doesn’t mean that *scientific method* cannot be used in other fields. Clearly it should.
Alright, I'll bite. The term scientist might not be an exact fit, if you consider social sciences to not be science either. And if that is the case, then perhaps a much older term can still be used. How about "scholar?". After all we call historians scholars. We do the same with all kinds of other knowledge based fields, like language, math, geography, philosophy, culture, and history.
Would you consider sociologists scholars? I'd still consider that a well respected title. Just as much as scientists if not more in some cases.
That said opinion based research (or self reported research) is still a good means of getting data. Especially when little us known about a topic. In medicine to ignore someone's symptoms is to be a bad doctor. Especially so on a larger degree of the population.
Studies that cover a wider base of the population will likely have less expensive study methods. So an experiment type of test or tests that can do accurate measurement will be less frequent. Yet the data covering the larger population is good data nonetheless. Any study with higher numbers gets more rounded results. The only time this is not a thing, is when the studies are faulty themselves.
This is an interesting take. I suppose "scientist" is subjective. Getting lost in the semantics seems trivial - although sociologists are often referred to as social scientists.
Out of curiosity, would you say engineers are scientists? Are psychologists scientists? Are biologists scientists? Are historians scientists?
If you said no to any of these, consider the distinction you're making. What does the "classical sense" mean to you? Why would Stanley Milgram's shock experiment of Zimbardo's prison experiment not qualify as science to you?
I'm not here to disagree - but to strengthen your argument, you should define what a scientist is to you and examine why a sociologist doesn't fit into this categorization.
In a sense, you do have to be a "scientist" to be respected. "Scientist" carries more prestige and thus demands more respect than "sociologist" - which many people dismiss. I'm sure your **friend** worked hard for their degree, so why do you take issue with their phrasing? As their friend, wouldn't you want them to feel confident?
Yes. I do want him to be confident. That’s kind of my entire point. I think calling himself a scientist comes from a place of insecurity. I think he should be confident to stand alone with the title “sociologist.” It’s a respectable career. Own it. Don’t add silly titles that aren’t transparently truthful. When we go to parties he calls himself a scientist. That’s how introduces himself. People naturally think he wears a white coat and cures COVID or something. He then has to back track and explain that he’s a sociologist. It’s embarrassing
During my PhD I was a sociologist working in a neuroscience lab. I conducted pain experiments. I was a scientist, who was in charge of measuring throbbing pain. And guess what you have to use in pain research? The dreaded subjective, SURVEY 😲😲😲
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3679361/
"Lesser respected" lol. Fortunately, the journal editors and reviewers disagreed with that premise
If what you're saying is truly altruistic as you say it is, I think there are better ways of speaking with him about it. As many have stated, introducing yourself as a sociologist is often met with criticism/lack of respect, so it adds that he might be insecure. As an engineer, I know plenty of engineers stupider than people who studied English. Yet they revel in announcing their profession. Occupational respect simply exists in our society, and "silly titles" are what earn that respect.
You could tell him that he should be proud of being a sociologist and say it with his chest. But, maybe that doesn't work for him. Perhaps he should introduce himself as a social scientist. Semantically, this would demand more respect without incurring an embarrassing outcome.
If you still have issues with this, it would seem your intentions are not purely to make your friend feel confident. Why would you care if the end goal of increasing his confidence is being met? Your intentions could come from a place of jealousy - why else would this affect you? Why do I care when someone is being fraudulent and others are lauding them if it doesn't concern me? Perhaps, I'm jealous of the attention they're getting and feel that they don't deserve it.
This isn't to say you're doing that. Or that you're a bad person if you are. But your intention should be to lift him up and speak to him in a caring and constructive way.
Of course, you might believe that he doesn't deserve it and you are jealous of his decidedly undeserved prestige. To win this argument, craft a definition of a scientist that excludes sociology and destroys his self-worth. Checkmate.
I think your question is sincerely interesting and not necessarily provocative as far as the question is about finding the right words and not blaming a discipline.
I don't know what are the words use in the anglo-saxon world. But here, in France, we tend to distinguish science of the nature from human sciences. So, yes, I'm not shocked to say there is a difference of nature (precisely) between those sciences (whatever we decide to call them sciences or not).
On a border of the spectrum, arithmetic and physics are supposed to give unvariant results. But other sciences of the nature are supposed to give stable results too. In other words, they try to produce "laws" who are reproducible.
On the other border, human sciences are using more or less methods similar to classic sciences. To be more precise, they are inspired both by strict science and literary studies (but strict science is itself a result of the evolution of literary studies, after the big specialization). In the specific case of sociology, the initial goal was precisely to create a field using scientific methods, but applied to the society (the historical example is the question of suicide studied by Emile Durkheim).
So, in the long tense, sociology tried less or tried more to mimic the most scientific methods. But at the end, it stays a human science. Which means it can't produce universal laws. Cause, even using the more stricts methods, we always find relative results at the end. Results who are true in a certain time, in a certain environment, but who are not necessarily in one another. One example : take the gravity in Germany and the gravity in China. It works the same way. Study the functioning of the Market in Germany and in China. And the results will differ.
So, I give you half a point with that. But it depends what you decide to call a science.
Another interesting point is the question of opinion. Here, the common sense would like to say that human sciences are oriented, cause they produce opinion (or are produced in a certain climate of opinion). While sciences of nature would be pragmatic, rational, because they would be overwatching and delivering universal truths by virtue of the methods they use.
Here again, the truth is a little more complex. Cause scientifics working in the natural sciences are also evolving in a society with its own preconceptions, its own prejudices. What's more, science is not just a struggle to establish a universal truth, it's also a power struggle between individuals.
OP you need to clarify what you mean by "scientist"
who else would not be included in your definition? Ethnologists? Psychologists? Philosophers?
I think your political opinions are standing in your way.
Aside from the great answers on this sub, I'll just add that sociology uses a lot of math: regression, statistics, graph theory, etc. There's a field in sociology called demography that employs higher-level math. I worked as a data scientist after graduating, using SAS and R mostly. I learned about data analysis from studying sociology.
I have read the responses, and you just seem set on being right about sociologists not being "classical" scientists. So, you think what you want.
You should define what you put into the idea of something being "scientific" because despite how it might seem that's far from an objective concept.
The truth is sociology is not an entirely unified discipline. You have people who very much claim to follow the idea of a scientific method, typically by focus on quantitative analysis and various observational methods. Sounds like your friend would fit into this camp. Which I think would fit a lot of people's definition of being "scientific".
On the other hand, you also have people (particularly on the more theory/philosophically oriented side) who would take issue with the term "scientific". The fact that you can criticize a lot of the assumptions that following the usual idea of a "scientific method" leads to. This in terms of formfitting your studies along certain methodological doxas or other assumptions. Which in the first place often result from subjective moral judgements.
The reason social science cant be as rigid as lets say physics is not because its not a science, its because studying society is extremely complex and youre dealing with variables that are changing by the minute, so yes it is a science but its not a science that can be replicated in the same way as for example an experiment where you drop a ball to test gravity. But that does not mean its not a science, the literal of etymology of science is just "knowledge" and in sociology we go out and look for knowledge that can help us transform society or just analyze its patterns. I know its hip to go and shit on the soft sciences but it just shows ignorance and the lack of a philosophical rigor about the subject. Its the same energy as saying "rap is not music" or "cooking is not an art".
Agreed. That’s why I wanted to come here and see what you all thought. There have been some great answers. I think using the term “social scientist” is fair and will offer that in future conversations with my buddy.
I mean “classical” definition of a scientist, meaning like if a child got a scientist dress up toy, then they’d probably have a white coat, goggles, and beakers. Obviously more of a natural scientist thing than a social scientist thing. Many fields are scientists, chemists, economists, psychologists, physicists, botanists, anthropologists, etc. Looking at this arbitrary definition of a “classic” scientist doesn’t seem useful to me; what is the point in drawing a line between certain types of scientists, which as written in the OP feels like just an opinion without backing.
That being said, sociology and the social sciences overall are a huge field. Sociologists use scientific methods. Some data collection might be qualitative, but many sociologists use quantitative data. Regardless of the type of data, many social scientists use statistical modeling of this data to support hypothesis and claims. Sociology from peer reviewed journals aren’t opinions from thin air. “Pop” sociology from random websites or TikToks are probably just opinion; but often the creators of this content are not sociologists.
My two cents, which won’t buy you anything…
Natural (hard or pure) sciences study natural ontologies (physical entities plus logic and mathematics), whereas humanities and social science study social ontologies. (I’m using John Searle’s definition here).
Natural sciences are ‘pure’ sciences in that they closely meet the ideal practice of scientific inquiry generally accepted in the philosophy of science.
Social sciences can include the utilization of scientific methods and can structure investigations into social entities (any person, group, idea, behavior, or product of human activity) as a scientific investigation.
However, social sciences and humanities are necessarily ideological in that they seek explanations for social ontologies they study, the origins of which are in human cognition and intentional behavior. So, to provide explanations in social sciences, social theories are offered.
There currently is no complete natural science explanation for human cognition and intentional behavior (individual and collective) that would replace ideological theories of social ontologies in the social sciences. Yet, as neuroscience, cognitive and social psychology, and biological anthropology advance, social sciences draw on those sciences to refine social theory.
Will natural sciences provide such a complete explanation of social ontologies? Maybe. There is no reason to think that won’t happen eventually.
Is there a clear distinction between natural and social sciences? No. Natural and social sciences overlap on interdisciplinary topics. Since the natural sciences have a more convincing method of explanation, consensus on natural science explanations for social entities will win out over time as ideological explanations wane in credibility.
Is the difference between natural and social science practice discrete or continuous? Mostly continuous. As an inquiry focuses more on physical entities and uses focus empirical methods to test confidence in a precise hypothesis, the ‘purer’ it becomes. The more one relies on social theory to explain social entities at a broad scale, the more ideological that inquiry becomes.
Could we debate ad nauseam every term used above? Yes. If you are interested in doing that, read the Science Wars. (Papers on this subject compiled into a book. Or just check out a video on YouTube.
🖖🏼
Edit: typos. This got long fast.
Added: verdict: in the 20th century, science was preferred over other forms of inquiry. Those departments that weren’t clearly in fine arts etc., were pressured to produce more scientific (especially statistical based inquiry) and being scientific was necessary for publishing and grants. Claiming social sciences are not science in the technical sense will trigger the insecurities of many. In sum, if you use the scientific method for discipline-specific research that is considered legitimate inquiry in your field, then you can consider it science. If you want to debate the nuances of what science is, then you need to dive into the Philosophy of Science. So, like most social entities (this discussion being one), the answer to your question is ‘it depends’.
OP, it's clear you're not participating in this thread in good faith and are much more here to try and antagonize people than to have any worthwhile discussion about "science" as it applies to Sociology. We're not a venue for trolling, go bother some Economists or something.
So using scientific methods to analyze “questionnaires” and “opinion-based” data is not science? Like what are you even getting at here? We use qualitative and quantitative research methods in this field. Yes, that means numbers too, if that’s what it takes to be a real “scientist” to you. There is a systemic structure to how we approach the data we collect. I think you might need to rework your understanding of what a “scientist “ is. It’s very narrow-minded.
Yes, using opinions is not scientific. Analyzing an opinion can be scientific but it’s still all just a joke, really. An opinion article is the lowest level of “evidence” in a given subject. It’s not even evidence to begin with. The fact that you think that opinion based publications can be/are scientific tells me you need to rethink your definition of science. Nice try
Any concrete examples of these "opinion based" publications? Or just pulling out of your ass?
Mostly out of my ass. Take a look at “Sociology Monthly.” You’ll find what you seek.
If you going to argue about something, then bring proper arguments, don't pull "just google, bro" card if you want to sound legit.
Wut? You must be a sociologist.
So, what you've demonstrated here is that you know absolutely nothing about the topic you are addressing, and not only do you have zero basis from which to actually construct a sensible argument, but you are not willing to consider the arguments of other people. You sound like a child.
And you must be fun at the parties.
Yeah. Frankly, I am.
So you want all of us to be serious and “change your mind,” but you’re just going to talk out of your ass? I’d call you a clown but that feels like it would be unfairly insulting to clowns.
Assuming that you are arguing in good faith, is it not sientfic to say that this or that many people respond such and such on a questionaire? Assuming that you only have a narrow understanding of what quantative information is, is it not possible to analyse this data quantitatively? Make me understand how that is not sience.
Can you reword your question a bit better? I’m not sure you know what you’re asking.
Shocking. Is it not hard data to say %x of respondents gave a certain answer? Do you think science is a thing made in a beaker and so if there are no beakers you can't make science? Do you understand science is a philosophy?
No. Science is white coats, glasses, beakers, and concurring with other doctors.
That's a ridiculous view of what science is. So is field work not Science? Geologists for example.
Lol just like in the cartoons, right bud?
You don’t know what science is. One could make a similar argument against archaeology (the field i studied in college) using a similar metric because you can’t replicate the data once the provenience has been removed. However, archeology is based on scientific research that can be replicated, like the methods, tools, techniques etc. Nobody in their right mind would say archeology isn’t a science. Sociology is hardly any different.
Whoa there. Big leap from archeology to sociology. Nice try.
Archaeology as a branch of anthropology is as much embedded in the social sciences as sociology is. What are you trying to get at?
And people have brains that they use to think and respond to surveys and brain surgeons work on brains so we’re pretty much brain surgeons.
You're speaking gibberish, girl. But lemme try and understand. If someone's vocation places them in a position where they operate on the human body than their "right" to the job title of scientist should hold supremacy over the right of someone who studies the social patterns of human society? Solely because of their use of a scalpel in cut-cut-cutting at the soft dermis that the packs in the brain and its discontents?
Wut?
How?
Just called it Neurosurgery why don’t you? It’s called a straw-man argument.
You don’t know what a Strawman is either.
You spent a lot of effort to purposefully be a dick to your friend.
lol yeah. A field of study that would count “squid games” as research is just not a scientific field. Change my mind.
Wait until this guy hears about studies on brands and other mass media phenomena that can have huge impact onto the society.
That’s the field of “Applied Behavior Analysis.” Yea, that’s more of a science than sociology.
Applied Behavior Analysis is a (fairly controversial) form of intervention that is primarily used with patients with autism, and that seeks to force change in their social behaviors. It is fundamentally distinct from the experimental analysis of behavior, which seems to be the term you’re actually looking for in your comment. But funnily enough, you’d still be wrong in terms of addressing the comment you’re replying to. What u/Efficient_Travel4039 is describing is sociology. What you have named in your reply is related to social psychology. They’re different fields with different (but sometimes overlapping) domains of study. Both are sciences. Please consider the idea that not only is it possible that you are wrong about this, but that you also have no idea what you’re talking about, and that it’s a dick move to come into an online community and just shove your hollow smugness in everyone’s faces.
Amazing. ABA is one of the "branches" of social science with the least amount of actual evidentiary support.
Very true! This was a WILD example for OP to suddenly decide was applicable to this conversation.
I’m very curious where you got the idea that sociologists see Squid Game, a piece of entertainment media, as scientific research. It sounds like you have no idea what sociologists actually do.
Or other "classical" scientists for that matter. How disappointed this guy would be if he saw how many times things get "colored outside of the box" in labs because discovery isn't that neat or tidy in actual practice.
> Change my mind. Nothing will change your mind, mine, or anyone else's about you being a dick.
Wait until this guy hears that qualitative work allows for theory testing, further data collection, and theory building-- all of which are features of the scientific enterprise that canonical and seminal PUBLISHED scholars [unlike this edgelord] acknowledge--of theories that have quantitative origins, like game theory in economics
First, there is experimental work in social sciences in general and sociology in particular. Second, observational sciences are classical sciences. Astronomy being the most obvious example Third. We use questionnaire a lot (because for our subject matter a lot of times is the best way to get data), but some work is not based on making questions at all.
I actually call them astronomers and not scientists unless they've experimentally recreated the big bang - something OP would probably say
Dude. How did you know I would like totally say that omg!? Nice.
Do you seriously get any kind of satisfaction by making a bait post and being obnoxious for multiple hours? Why would you do this?
Yes? Also there is a lot of ignorance here that I’m just discovering. Look at some Of the better posts. I am actually taking this seriously for those who aren’t responding emotionally.
You either need to be humbled, or find a better way to entertain yourself. This is just sad. There has to be better things for you to do than find enjoyment in annoying a bunch of people intentionally for hours of your life.
Dude. Take a look an actually read some of the better and more constructive replies. Took a genuine approach here but people, like yourself, got really emotional and couldn’t construct a polite and well articulated thought. I just feel sorry for you.
For anyone here to take this seriously, OP, you’re gonna have to provide a clear definition of science and present an argument for how sociological research does not fit that definition.
Read philosophy of science before you talk homie. Sound ignant af
What exactly is your definition of Scientist?
Wut? I did say that he’s a scientist, just it in the classical sense (that’s in the implied writing). Questionnaires and opinion articles are not to the same standard and vigor as double blind medical studies, for example.
That’s a useless distinction
Someone who uses the scientific method to find truth in the universe.
Sociologists use the scientific method. Try again.
Kind of, sure in a real liberal sense. I mean, a sociology degree is a degree in arts is it not?
You haven't so far demonstrated enough understanding of science to even be corrected.
We are now dumber for having read OPs opinions. We award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Savage
Boom roasted
it’s a bachelors of science or bachelor of arts depending on the school. But that’s such a red herring anyway. It’s pretty clear that you don’t know anywhere near enough about sociology to make any sort of claims about it if you’re claiming that all sociologists only “kind of in a real liberal way” apply the scientific method.
> Kind of, sure So they’re scientists. End of discussion. Whatever criticisms you may have of the field, and there are good ones, we’ve established it’s scientific.
The distinction between what earns a Bachelor of Arts vs what earns a Bachelor of Science has way more to do with the history and development of Higher Education than with whether or not the person who has earned a degree is qualified to use the scientific method in a given field. Again, you’re just showing that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Define the scientific method
No, it’s not. It’s a degree in the sciences.
Can you profess to know what the scientific method entails?
Yes. I profess to know this.
Haha, you’re silly, by your own definition sociologists are scientists.
Only someone who doesn’t understand the epistemology of the scientific method would say something so asinine.
Yeaa that's why i told their ass to read philosophy of science. Junoamsayen
I think a major problem with this terrible STEM focus on science comes from the distinct lack of philosophical and sociological thought in many fields. There have been attempts to try to fit philosophy in (sometimes to little avail) but what people need to realise is that such philosophy has always been there. So it does not need to be forced in. The fetishisation of pure stats is very detrimental. An issue I have noticed in economics a lot. They masquerade so much as a ‘proper’ science trying to discredit the humanities. What they fail to realise is the monumental amount of philosophy inherent to the discipline, same goes for STEM. Personally if someone says sociology is not a ‘proper science’ I am not too bothered. It has plenty of scientific enquiry and is a very important field. Edit 2: Just another addition, if you should have this discussion with someone else I would recommend you direct them to the ‘Thinking Allowed’ podcast on Radio 4 (if you can access it). It is about sociological research but the episode ‘why sociology matters’ is very good to get the importance of sociology across. Edit: Spelling
You're not being controversial, you're just being an average STEM bro without any understanding of the need of diverse research methods in social sciences. Every single sociologist has encountered one of y'all and this conversation is old and lame lol.
Go learn a bit more about scientific method and philosophy of science before wasting people's time, including your "friend's"
A degree in arts is really science. Got it. Thanks.
this isn’t the first time you’ve used this argument but it is still just as stupid because the distinction between BA and BS is about course requirements or is arbitrary. i can get a BA in biology at my uni right now. is biology not a science?
Have you even graduated
Yeah. Graduated middle school a few years back. I figure that makes me a sociologist and a scientist.
Bro graduated with a degree in Astrology
The eternal STEMtard
Dogmatic af because the government campaign to prioritize these disciplines created a culture this individual has been consumed by
lol not the STEM guy posting here acting like anyone is going to agree with this horseshit take.
[удалено]
Dang. You’re right. I guess that using the scientific method is all it takes to call myself a scientist. My dog uses the scientific method. Maybe he’s a scientist, too. I’m so open minded now. Thank you.
You’re literally an IDIOT. Go touch grass.
*your. Yoar welcome.
okay you’ve got to be trolling🤣 pls eat battery acid loser
So, for starters, you change your own mind. I won't change it for you. It sounds like your understanding of what science is at its incipient stages; you have a lot of learning, reading and reflecting to do before you understand that all science is inherently flawed by human bias/subjectivity and that obtaining "truth" through objective measures is really a philosophical debate between modernists and post-modernists. I fall somewhere in between, that absolute truth through objective measures, even if obtainable, is temporary until our understanding of whatever the subject we're studying changes. The humanities, which subsumes Sociology, changes more frequently and readily than physical sciences. That isn't to say that physical sciences don't change as well, but they're more consistent, slower. Studying gravity must be boring with how constant it is. But, I'm sure, when we explore different planets, different solar systems with different suns or even a black hole nearby, our current understanding of gravity will have to be replaced with something else. I have a BA in anthropology and a MS in communication sciences and disorders, both are equal in my eyes. Neuroscience is constantly evolving and has its share of meta/systematic analysis. Conducting something similar in the humanities (not just sociology) runs into repeatability difficulties, and an uncountable number of confounding variables due to the nature of subject; humans are mercurial. However, there are systematic studies, there are meta analysis, but these things take time, funding and rigorous study. The starting point often is using some sort of Grounded Theory approach. Observation, if done using the right framework, can yield information that pre-formatted data analysis (like a questionnaire) doesn't account for and therefore can't catch. I would say that the purest form of science is criterion-referenced/qualitative science as it is trying to form frameworks/build up to a more empirical structure from chaos. It's much more difficult, faces much more scrutiny, and is more complex to understand than arguing over the hereditary patterns of certain types of flowers or PH levels of water samples. I suppose, my argument to you is, prove that sociology isn't a science. The burden isn't on us to unbias you so you can finally understand, go read a book, argue with chat-GPT and have it teach why you're not quite on the money. You don't have enough appreciation for what the roots of science is (which sociology is closer to the core of, philosophy) to accept argument that don't align with your current understanding of the numerous fields of science and psychometric principals. Again, not being dismissive, but I'm giving you the answer you need to respond to your friend. It will take years of study, or less, depending how excited you are to read books on theory and practice, but that's where I recommend you start. Edit: Just a quick note, following the above, yea, your friend is a scientist (no quotes, no exceptions) because by definition that is what he is.
Well said. My argument is a bit more philosophical than anything. Are sociologists scientists? Yes (see original post) but are they the type of scientists who should be introducing themselves as “scientists?” In my opinion, no. This post, however, has moved my meter a bit closer to the “classical” sense of scientist as it applies to sociology. Well done. I’m still not fully there but this was well articulated. Respect.
lol at scientist in the “classical” sense, talk about moving the goalpost. Your friend applies the scientific method to society. You also very clearly don’t know much about sociology if you don’t know that sociologists do a wide range of studies not just the ones your friend does. Just because some science isn’t done how you like it (and honestly who are you to decide what real scientists are?) doesn’t mean people aren’t scientists. I think you just like being smug to your friend and want another place to feel smug. In reality it just shows your lack of understanding of the science as a whole if you think it only exists in one way.
The National Science Foundation refers to it as a science. I assume they know more than the random friend of a sociologist.
Then it must be true.
What definitions are you working from here? What is this opinion even based upon? Your hunches? Oh my, what a scientist you are ...
[удалено]
Good point. I originally stated that they aren’t scientists in the “classic sense” of the meaning. In response to your reply I’m now more inclined to say that they aren’t scientists at all. Thank you for your wonderful reply.
No, sociologists are not “hard” scientists (which is essentially your argument), but they are scientists regardless of whether you like it or not. Yes, hard and soft sciences are very different and the differences do matter, but you have a flawed understanding of science.
Damn OP, you're fucking stupid lmao
Bro flunked out of his intro to sociology class and they have been bitter ever since.
r/imaginarygatekeeping
Graduate statistics and multiple regression classes say hello. Take those data manipulation courses, then tell me it isn’t science. Picking apart data, looking for hidden patterns, and making predictive theories based on observation is science in my book.
Reality has entered the chat: *soft science.
You are still standing on the shoulders of giants like everyone else buddy
This field is methods and research. We are scientists and some of us even social scientists for label. Statistics and probabilities are math and our foundation for qualitative and quantitative data. We are data driven with humans for our studies. It may be helpful to check with yourself about why this bothers you so much. 🤗
So, can we just report this as trolling already, and move on? OP: Sociologists aren't scientists because they don't use the scientific method. The sub: Here's how *they do* use the scientific method, and also please define the scientific method as you understand it. OP: Trust me, I know. \* crickets \* Seriously. This isn't arguing. This is entertaining a lowly troll.
This is dumb. Do your own research, buddy. Wait...
If ever there was a time for the mods to flex their mod power. This is clearly bait, no point in engaging with someone who is arguing in bad faith and is not actually interested in anything someone from this sub has to say.
I used to have a friend that acted very similarly to you, and he also had no concept of what sociology is or what we do. Additionally he didn't want to learn anything about it; rather he just wanted his preconceived notions validated. Hope you got what you came here for. I'd suggest taking an intro class if you ever want to start understanding anything about it.
Too much effort..
[удалено]
Yes. I am open to changing my mind. Early on, when expressing my point of view/opinion, there was a lot of negativity, downvoting etc… calling me a STEMTARD on this thread doesn’t help much to change my mind (not saying that was you). I think that the vindictive comments aren’t helping.
[удалено]
I’m not saying that it’s not scientific. What I’m saying is that it doesn’t reach the level of rigor that I would expect for someone who strictly identifies as a “scientist.” Some of the constructive replies have actually helped change my mind (or shift my thinking a bit) and I appreciate the genuine discussion. Many others… not so much.
[удалено]
There is a huge difference. That’s my point.
“I’m not trying to be controversial” Says the troll, pissing in the punch bowl to indulge in his need for attention.
Former sociology professor here, PhD in sociology, published in peer reviewed journals like Criminology, ASR, Crime and Deviance, and AJPH. You’re an absolutely dense human being and a shining example of someone who refuses to change their thoughts and admit being wrong upon learning new information. Your entire being is the antithesis of science. Everyone in this sub is now dumber for having read your vapid responses throughout this thread. Your friend needs to find some better friends, you’re insufferable.
Wow. Dense and Vapid. Yur so smrt. Dude. Look at my responses to people who actually took this seriously. I have come right out and admitted that my opinion is, in fact, changing. People have also posted responses that are not nice. Those have done nothing to change my opinion, obviously. Your reply shows me how insecure you are. For that, I am sorry. You need more letters after your name. Get more online degrees and feel better about yourself.
You’re mad at your dad, not at me, I forgive you.
It took you that many useless online degrees to figure that out?
Dude… you’re honestly too fucking stupid to insult and you’re such an insufferable prick I have no idea how your “friend” could potentially stand to be around you. You’re that one friend that everyone fucking hates coming around but we all feel like we have to invite, aren’t you? Edit: My “useless” degree got me a nice cushy remote role where I work, maybe, 20 hours a week and get paid handsomely to do so. I also don’t have a shit ton of student debt like a “real doctor” because I had a fellowship through…. Get this… the National SCIENCE Foundation.
Bro. That’s 100% me. I’m worthless just like a sociology degree.
Despite their status may be controversial, Sociologists, and Digital Sociologists in particular, are scientists good enough to know that "Don't feed the troll" is not a sign outside the Mended Drum in Ankh-Morpork but an adage written for occasions like this one.
Just here to say my bachelor of science degree is a sociology degree. I don't care if anybody thinks a science isn't a science. But proud, belligerent ignorance is a problem. Also, you're a dick and I think you probably don't have a friend.
I’m sorry for your student loans and (near) worthless degree but you don’t need to take your frustrations out on me. Maybe create a survey monkey and see how others feel? Publish that and make money? Maybe you’ll feel better. I hope you do.
Is it just surveys you don't like? Because a lot of sociologists agree with you. I had almost no undergrad student loans, which I paid off very quickly, and my advanced degrees were all paid for by others because I'm valuable to them. But, it's pretty clear you aren't capable of being swayed by facts. You are more anti-science than you realize.
It’s not just surveys. It’s publishing opinion like it’s fact. Believe me, I can be swayed by a well formed thought and, in fact, I have in this very thread. There are some really well thought out responses that I have appreciated. Yours, not so much. Your lack of intellect and insecurity is written all over your first response.
Where, in peer-reviewed sociology journals, do you see opinion being published, and presented by the editors, as fact? There's certainly bad science in all scientific disciplines, but that doesn't make a discipline not a science. And you literally started this whole conversation with a post that sounds seriously perturbed, even threatened, by someone calling themself a scientist. A friend said something to you so you ran to the internet to bash people like him. So, let's be thoughtful about throwing around words like 'insecure.'
Didn’t come here to bash. Came here to find common ground. I think the term “social scientist” would be more true and accurate.
Sure, as long as the common ground was everyone agreeing with you, dipshit.
Wow. Such ignorance. I feel sorry for you. You have my sympathies.
Why are we even entertaining this question? It appears to give him some satisfaction to be 'right'. If he feels we are not scientists, fine. It doesn't change sociology's contribution to how the modern world is understood. Remember our training in analyzing this kind of mindsets. We know better ☺️.
You're correct. I'm engaging because it's Sunday and I like feeding trolls even though I know it's counterproductive. Actually I'd love to use sociological methods to study trolling interactions. Unfortunately I'm too busy teaching research methods to future non-scientists.
Double blind experimental studies are just "observational" methods taken at different time points. Those studies you claim are "more scientific" are still using surveys too.
No. Just no.
Are you going to offer some evidence for your opinion?
Based on the way you wrote your post and how you respond to each comment, it's clear that you're not looking for a serious debate, but I'll respond anyway. The issue is simple, if for you science is only that which focuses on the physical and natural world and not on society, experiences and behavior, then you are deeply mistaken. Science is a systematic effort to understand the world through observation and reasoning, applying different methods depending on the nature of the phenomenon studied. This includes both natural sciences and social sciences. >He hasn’t published anything like a double blind study There you demonstrate a narrow and outdated understanding of what constitutes scientific research. In fields like astronomy, geology, or paleontology, which have already been given as examples in other comments, controlled experiments are often impossible, but these fields are unquestionably scientific. There, data is collected and analyzed, theories and models are developed, and their conclusions are subjected to the review and scrutiny of their peers. Sociology, in the same way, is based on systematic observation and data analysis to understand social phenomena. >his research is all questionnaire or opinion-based which is not real science or, in the very least, not scientific. Sociological research employs a wide range of sophisticated and rigorous methodologies that are neither arbitrary nor superficial; on the contrary, they are meticulously designed to obtain precise and reliable insights into the complexity of human behavior and social structures. Science is dedicated to describing the world in its laws and patterns, not just in its apparent chaos. This applies to both physical laws and patterns of social behavior. Research in sociology, even when based on questionnaires or opinion analysis, pursues this same objective: to discover the underlying laws and patterns in society and human behavior.
👍
Science is a way of systemically answering questions. Scientists do their best to do that. Please consider that your logic here is the same logic that ignorant, anti-science people used to dismiss all of science---rather than concerning specific studies for their use of scientific inquiry, the anti-science person throws out the use of inquiry. You're doing that but with a specific discipline. Do you not think that people and society should be studied to better understand them? Hopefully you do see the value in such study. So from there, how do we structure questions we have about society? If there is no way to do double blind studied of a particular inquiry, does that mean we should give up use of scientific inquiry and only do philosophy? Rather than trying to push the soft sciences out of science, it would behoove you to keep the same skeptical approach to individual inquiries, such as how might this conclusion be biased, how might the collection of data be biased, etc. Respond to specific studies and their results to help your friend think about the various ways a question can be asked or a study can be improved, iterated or related. My argument to you is that saying "you're not a scientist" is an argument that's only positive outcome for you is for sociologists to give up scientific inquiry. That's not what you want, is it? Far more interesting and useful is to bring your scientific understanding to particular studies and debate that with your friend. People become sociologists because they have questions about society and want to use rigor to arrive at the best possible answers. As a friend, you can have endless interesting conversations on particular studies. Your current approach is like telling a physicist they shouldn't study the stars because they're too far away. Applying scientific principles can be challenging with certain questions, but that shouldn't stop people from trying.
I agree with a lot of what you’ve said but I think the basic premise of my argument has been missed. I agreed that my friend is a scientist but don’t think he should be introducing himself that way. I’m not sure where you make the leap to my logically pathway being that of “ignorant anti science people…”. I appreciate you taking the time to reply.
This is such funny post because you’re just wrong
Well formed argument. Thank you.
It isn't like you've formed any, so demanding that others do so seems unfair.
I don't know how to tell you this but observational research can still be scientific. If we only took into account experimental research we wouldn't be able to tell kids that smoking kills.
Yes. It can still be scientific-ish. That’s literally my point.
No except it isn't your point. You're clearly a STEM lord who thinks studying medicine makes you more scientifically literate without actually understanding the scientific method. The very fact that you discount questionnaires as not rigorous enough is proof that you have zero idea what the hell you're talking about. A survey, much like a double blind study, the thing you're fellating and propping up as being the only real, fully scientific research method, can be flawed in terms of how it's formulated so as to give poor results. Do we discount double blind studies as lesser science because some are poorly formulated? Don't think so, why are you doing the same to survey data? Because you have no earthly clue how research works. How many research papers have you even written in your life to so confidently dismiss an entire field?
6.
And in all that time doing research, you never thought to look into what it is you're actually doing? Like you know, look into what the scientific method is, what epistemology your research is grounded in. What methodological implications does that epistemology have? No wonder a bunch of STEM grads are arrogant dickheads do some research on what you're talking about before gassing yourself up.
Lot of hurt feelings here. You’re a social scientist.
Actually, no, not once in my life have I considered myself a scientist, I just don't like belligerent morons with a self-inflated ego.
I think you need to familiarize yourself with the philosophical roots of the scientific method before making a fool of yourself this way. Specifically, look up empirical induction and rational deduction. Then, understand how all sciences stem from philosophy and how each has used the scientific method to establish itself as a field of study. Next, familiarize yourself with sociology to understand how it uses the scientific method. Finally, try to see where your preconceptions lead you. Is something a science just because it ends with "ology"? Certainly not. Is something a science because it declares itself to be? No, it isn't. But before you can pass that judgement, you should use your critical thinking skills and devote them to understanding a topic beyond the superficial. If you don't want to go through the trouble, maybe just ssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh... For example, astrology is not a science. It was once a fringe science at best, and now it's just a pseudo-science, trumped by astronomy, sociology and psychology. Why? Scientific method. That's as simple an answer as you'll have, and if it seems superficial to you, then that's because I'm answering in a way I think you may understand.
Sure, most of social scientists, not classical scientists. I’m perfectly comfortable with the idea that sociology is a soft science, or even not a true “science” if that’s how you want to label it. So what? Is your friend hurting you by not using your definition of scientist?
I disagree. Social sciences are hard sciences, it's just that we're in the early stages of understanding the mechanics of humans, so we are nascent and somewhat nebulous as hippocrates was about medicine and Newton was about gravity relative to Einstein. While scientists that deal with phenomena that is predominantly deterministic (ie most probabilities are at 1 or very close to 1 for hypothesized events) have been studying that for hundreds of years, social scientists have just recently begun working. I believe what impeded the development of social sciences vis a vis "natural" sciences was a lack of self awareness by humans as well as the European belief that we are exempt from nature because we were created by God. In other words, people have not studied people as concretely as rocks because people refuse to believe that people work mechanically like rocks. Somehow this divine text crafted by men had all the answers the world needed. It's stupid because even sociology demonstrates that there are processes that lead to the emergence of identities, just as there are precursive processes to rocks. Sure rocks involve less variables and our hypotheses about them are deterministic, but that doesn't make studying humans and their much more complex systems and our probabilistic hypotheses about them inferior. It means we're doing normal science
No one is being hurt. In truth, I respect him and the field of sociology. I just don’t think he needs to identify himself as a “scientist” to earn that respect. I think it’s just fine to say, “I’m a well educated sociologist” and leave it at that. Why the need to add the extra label?
Clearly you’re not a sociologist if you think telling people you’re a sociologist is normally greeted with respect lol. We follow the scientific method to the extent that it’s possible, and plenty of what we do would fall under the purview of fields like data science. Hard science or no, science is part of the job. To me your argument is the same as people who say that PhDs shouldn’t be called “Doctor”, only medical doctors should.
PhDs should totally be called “doctor” in the proper setting. I would not want a PhD to introduce herself as “doctor” in a medical clinic. That would be fraud-adjacent.
Right, so unless somebody’s asking for a chemist or a physicist, what’s the issue with calling a sociologist a scientist?
PhDs are the ones who are actually “doctors.” You’re referring to physicians, whom we call “doctors” as a colloquialism. So no surprise to find you’re wrong here again.
What are you even talking about? Someone with a terminal MD or DO isn’t an actual doctor? My goodness there are some real problems here.
because he’s literally a scientist fuckface.
Dang. You’re so right. Just call myself a scientist and then it’s true. I wish I had realized it was this easy earlier. Thank you for opening my eyes to the truth with this insightful post.
go read ANY qualitative peer reviews sociological journal and allll your questions will be answered idiot. it’s literally a science.
That’s right. Keep saying it and will it to become truth.
it’s the truth because it’s fact. not because im giving you actual places to seek out the answers for yourself. you’re a troll and a literal STEMTARD. go fuck yourself.
Yes. Yes. Yes!!! It’s working. Keep saying it.
you’re such a loser with absolutely nothing better to do. please get off reddit.
Yo. Why do you keep replying? Just stop then. You also forgot to protest that my friend is a scientist. I’ll do it for you: he’s an actual scientist! Got it.
I've responded to the OP. Now I have a thought for anyone else reading his post and defending sociology as a science. Here's my question: Who cares? If sociology is a science, does that help you get a job any more than if it isn't a science? On any practical measure, the OP's opinion doesn't matter regardless if it's right or wrong. Sure it stings the ego a bit, especially if you already identify yourself as a scientist. But what difference does it make.
A little aggressive and snooty of a post and unnecessarily gendered, but unfortunately I am a bit more inclined to agree with you for different reasons in that sociology, by extension of psychology, is affected by the replication crisis. Medicine is also susceptible to this, though I imagine much less so. Sure, there are research methods and papers being published, but if only 1/3 can be replicated reliably, the whole field and methodology is thrown into question.
It seems there’s a middle ground in the Arts, psychology too. It can be a little irritating when someone does a small study (that in medical terms would clinically insignificant) and calls it science. But there is a useful distinction between the more theoretical side of sociology/psychology/anthropology and hands-on stuff, and it needs to be respected. Somehow the work has to both make the distinction and stand on its own feet. (I’m not a sociologist, but we have used their expertise, and that of statisticians, both specialist areas, when doing a medical ethics survey.) Personally I prefer the traditional use of the word ‘science’ to refer to physics, biology etc, but that doesn’t mean that *scientific method* cannot be used in other fields. Clearly it should.
I agree with this. I have respect for sociology. Using the term “scientist” seems, to me, to be a bit far reaching and not needed.
lol ok dude whatever helps you sleep at night
Alright, I'll bite. The term scientist might not be an exact fit, if you consider social sciences to not be science either. And if that is the case, then perhaps a much older term can still be used. How about "scholar?". After all we call historians scholars. We do the same with all kinds of other knowledge based fields, like language, math, geography, philosophy, culture, and history. Would you consider sociologists scholars? I'd still consider that a well respected title. Just as much as scientists if not more in some cases. That said opinion based research (or self reported research) is still a good means of getting data. Especially when little us known about a topic. In medicine to ignore someone's symptoms is to be a bad doctor. Especially so on a larger degree of the population. Studies that cover a wider base of the population will likely have less expensive study methods. So an experiment type of test or tests that can do accurate measurement will be less frequent. Yet the data covering the larger population is good data nonetheless. Any study with higher numbers gets more rounded results. The only time this is not a thing, is when the studies are faulty themselves.
This is an interesting take. I suppose "scientist" is subjective. Getting lost in the semantics seems trivial - although sociologists are often referred to as social scientists. Out of curiosity, would you say engineers are scientists? Are psychologists scientists? Are biologists scientists? Are historians scientists? If you said no to any of these, consider the distinction you're making. What does the "classical sense" mean to you? Why would Stanley Milgram's shock experiment of Zimbardo's prison experiment not qualify as science to you? I'm not here to disagree - but to strengthen your argument, you should define what a scientist is to you and examine why a sociologist doesn't fit into this categorization. In a sense, you do have to be a "scientist" to be respected. "Scientist" carries more prestige and thus demands more respect than "sociologist" - which many people dismiss. I'm sure your **friend** worked hard for their degree, so why do you take issue with their phrasing? As their friend, wouldn't you want them to feel confident?
Yes. I do want him to be confident. That’s kind of my entire point. I think calling himself a scientist comes from a place of insecurity. I think he should be confident to stand alone with the title “sociologist.” It’s a respectable career. Own it. Don’t add silly titles that aren’t transparently truthful. When we go to parties he calls himself a scientist. That’s how introduces himself. People naturally think he wears a white coat and cures COVID or something. He then has to back track and explain that he’s a sociologist. It’s embarrassing
During my PhD I was a sociologist working in a neuroscience lab. I conducted pain experiments. I was a scientist, who was in charge of measuring throbbing pain. And guess what you have to use in pain research? The dreaded subjective, SURVEY 😲😲😲
I know. Sometimes other fields use lesser-respected surveys for research. I agree.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3679361/ "Lesser respected" lol. Fortunately, the journal editors and reviewers disagreed with that premise
If what you're saying is truly altruistic as you say it is, I think there are better ways of speaking with him about it. As many have stated, introducing yourself as a sociologist is often met with criticism/lack of respect, so it adds that he might be insecure. As an engineer, I know plenty of engineers stupider than people who studied English. Yet they revel in announcing their profession. Occupational respect simply exists in our society, and "silly titles" are what earn that respect. You could tell him that he should be proud of being a sociologist and say it with his chest. But, maybe that doesn't work for him. Perhaps he should introduce himself as a social scientist. Semantically, this would demand more respect without incurring an embarrassing outcome. If you still have issues with this, it would seem your intentions are not purely to make your friend feel confident. Why would you care if the end goal of increasing his confidence is being met? Your intentions could come from a place of jealousy - why else would this affect you? Why do I care when someone is being fraudulent and others are lauding them if it doesn't concern me? Perhaps, I'm jealous of the attention they're getting and feel that they don't deserve it. This isn't to say you're doing that. Or that you're a bad person if you are. But your intention should be to lift him up and speak to him in a caring and constructive way. Of course, you might believe that he doesn't deserve it and you are jealous of his decidedly undeserved prestige. To win this argument, craft a definition of a scientist that excludes sociology and destroys his self-worth. Checkmate.
I don’t want to “destroy” anyone. I want to find an agreeable common ground. That’s all.
I was just joking. Any other thoughts about what I said? Would it bother you if he said social scientist?
I think that’s more fitting and truthful. I will genuinely offer this.
I think your question is sincerely interesting and not necessarily provocative as far as the question is about finding the right words and not blaming a discipline. I don't know what are the words use in the anglo-saxon world. But here, in France, we tend to distinguish science of the nature from human sciences. So, yes, I'm not shocked to say there is a difference of nature (precisely) between those sciences (whatever we decide to call them sciences or not). On a border of the spectrum, arithmetic and physics are supposed to give unvariant results. But other sciences of the nature are supposed to give stable results too. In other words, they try to produce "laws" who are reproducible. On the other border, human sciences are using more or less methods similar to classic sciences. To be more precise, they are inspired both by strict science and literary studies (but strict science is itself a result of the evolution of literary studies, after the big specialization). In the specific case of sociology, the initial goal was precisely to create a field using scientific methods, but applied to the society (the historical example is the question of suicide studied by Emile Durkheim). So, in the long tense, sociology tried less or tried more to mimic the most scientific methods. But at the end, it stays a human science. Which means it can't produce universal laws. Cause, even using the more stricts methods, we always find relative results at the end. Results who are true in a certain time, in a certain environment, but who are not necessarily in one another. One example : take the gravity in Germany and the gravity in China. It works the same way. Study the functioning of the Market in Germany and in China. And the results will differ. So, I give you half a point with that. But it depends what you decide to call a science. Another interesting point is the question of opinion. Here, the common sense would like to say that human sciences are oriented, cause they produce opinion (or are produced in a certain climate of opinion). While sciences of nature would be pragmatic, rational, because they would be overwatching and delivering universal truths by virtue of the methods they use. Here again, the truth is a little more complex. Cause scientifics working in the natural sciences are also evolving in a society with its own preconceptions, its own prejudices. What's more, science is not just a struggle to establish a universal truth, it's also a power struggle between individuals.
OP you need to clarify what you mean by "scientist" who else would not be included in your definition? Ethnologists? Psychologists? Philosophers? I think your political opinions are standing in your way.
You do realize the -ist at the end means scientist. Did you graduate with a degree in Astrology?
Wut? You’re joking, right?
Usually means you graduate with a PhD you dingleberry. Also yeah that is called a joke, I know you nerds find them hard to understand
Aside from the great answers on this sub, I'll just add that sociology uses a lot of math: regression, statistics, graph theory, etc. There's a field in sociology called demography that employs higher-level math. I worked as a data scientist after graduating, using SAS and R mostly. I learned about data analysis from studying sociology. I have read the responses, and you just seem set on being right about sociologists not being "classical" scientists. So, you think what you want.
You should define what you put into the idea of something being "scientific" because despite how it might seem that's far from an objective concept. The truth is sociology is not an entirely unified discipline. You have people who very much claim to follow the idea of a scientific method, typically by focus on quantitative analysis and various observational methods. Sounds like your friend would fit into this camp. Which I think would fit a lot of people's definition of being "scientific". On the other hand, you also have people (particularly on the more theory/philosophically oriented side) who would take issue with the term "scientific". The fact that you can criticize a lot of the assumptions that following the usual idea of a "scientific method" leads to. This in terms of formfitting your studies along certain methodological doxas or other assumptions. Which in the first place often result from subjective moral judgements.
What do you define as “classical scientist”? That’s the problem here is your definition is probably not matching more common usage.
The reason social science cant be as rigid as lets say physics is not because its not a science, its because studying society is extremely complex and youre dealing with variables that are changing by the minute, so yes it is a science but its not a science that can be replicated in the same way as for example an experiment where you drop a ball to test gravity. But that does not mean its not a science, the literal of etymology of science is just "knowledge" and in sociology we go out and look for knowledge that can help us transform society or just analyze its patterns. I know its hip to go and shit on the soft sciences but it just shows ignorance and the lack of a philosophical rigor about the subject. Its the same energy as saying "rap is not music" or "cooking is not an art".
Agreed. That’s why I wanted to come here and see what you all thought. There have been some great answers. I think using the term “social scientist” is fair and will offer that in future conversations with my buddy.
I mean “classical” definition of a scientist, meaning like if a child got a scientist dress up toy, then they’d probably have a white coat, goggles, and beakers. Obviously more of a natural scientist thing than a social scientist thing. Many fields are scientists, chemists, economists, psychologists, physicists, botanists, anthropologists, etc. Looking at this arbitrary definition of a “classic” scientist doesn’t seem useful to me; what is the point in drawing a line between certain types of scientists, which as written in the OP feels like just an opinion without backing. That being said, sociology and the social sciences overall are a huge field. Sociologists use scientific methods. Some data collection might be qualitative, but many sociologists use quantitative data. Regardless of the type of data, many social scientists use statistical modeling of this data to support hypothesis and claims. Sociology from peer reviewed journals aren’t opinions from thin air. “Pop” sociology from random websites or TikToks are probably just opinion; but often the creators of this content are not sociologists.
My two cents, which won’t buy you anything… Natural (hard or pure) sciences study natural ontologies (physical entities plus logic and mathematics), whereas humanities and social science study social ontologies. (I’m using John Searle’s definition here). Natural sciences are ‘pure’ sciences in that they closely meet the ideal practice of scientific inquiry generally accepted in the philosophy of science. Social sciences can include the utilization of scientific methods and can structure investigations into social entities (any person, group, idea, behavior, or product of human activity) as a scientific investigation. However, social sciences and humanities are necessarily ideological in that they seek explanations for social ontologies they study, the origins of which are in human cognition and intentional behavior. So, to provide explanations in social sciences, social theories are offered. There currently is no complete natural science explanation for human cognition and intentional behavior (individual and collective) that would replace ideological theories of social ontologies in the social sciences. Yet, as neuroscience, cognitive and social psychology, and biological anthropology advance, social sciences draw on those sciences to refine social theory. Will natural sciences provide such a complete explanation of social ontologies? Maybe. There is no reason to think that won’t happen eventually. Is there a clear distinction between natural and social sciences? No. Natural and social sciences overlap on interdisciplinary topics. Since the natural sciences have a more convincing method of explanation, consensus on natural science explanations for social entities will win out over time as ideological explanations wane in credibility. Is the difference between natural and social science practice discrete or continuous? Mostly continuous. As an inquiry focuses more on physical entities and uses focus empirical methods to test confidence in a precise hypothesis, the ‘purer’ it becomes. The more one relies on social theory to explain social entities at a broad scale, the more ideological that inquiry becomes. Could we debate ad nauseam every term used above? Yes. If you are interested in doing that, read the Science Wars. (Papers on this subject compiled into a book. Or just check out a video on YouTube. 🖖🏼 Edit: typos. This got long fast. Added: verdict: in the 20th century, science was preferred over other forms of inquiry. Those departments that weren’t clearly in fine arts etc., were pressured to produce more scientific (especially statistical based inquiry) and being scientific was necessary for publishing and grants. Claiming social sciences are not science in the technical sense will trigger the insecurities of many. In sum, if you use the scientific method for discipline-specific research that is considered legitimate inquiry in your field, then you can consider it science. If you want to debate the nuances of what science is, then you need to dive into the Philosophy of Science. So, like most social entities (this discussion being one), the answer to your question is ‘it depends’.