positivists need to have theories that are true, otherwise they are pointless. They need to make sure that all the evidence they have verifies their theory they have made. When it does they claim to have discovered a general 'law
positivists believe that as far as possible sociology should use the experimental method as a model for research as it allows hypotheses to be tested systematically
use quantitative data to uncover patterns of behaviour and produce mathematically precise statements about relationships being investigated
researchers should be detached and objective
there is a danger the researcher may contaminate the research, so positivists prefer methods that allow complete detachment like questionnaires and experiments
claimed to have discovered a real law in his study 'le suicide' by concluding through official statistics about religion and suicide that catholicism was more integrating and so had a lower suicide rate
interpretivists argue that the subject matter of sociology is menaingful social action so has to be interpreted to understand the meanings and motives of people involved
reject the natural sciences method because of the fundamental difference that people construct their world through consciousness
individuals are autonomous beings that construct their own social world, not puppets without any control
postmodernists view natural sciences as purely accounts of the world rather than a single truth, so there is no reason to accept its theory
there are as many truths as there are points of view so a scientific approach is dangerous as it claims a monopoly of the truth and disregards other views
eg. in the soviet union marxism was used to justify coersion and oppression
popper - many systems of thought claim to have true knowledge of the world such as religious and political ideologies, so he asks two questions about the emergence of science
what distinguishes scientific knowledge from other forms of knowledge?
why has scientific knowledge be able to grow so quickly in the last few centuries?
popper - rejects the view that the distinctive feature of science is inductive reasoning because of the 'fallacy error of induction'
famously uses the example of swans - it is easy to make the generalisation that all swans are white but it can't be proved as even one black swan completely disproves it
popper - 'all knowledge is provisional, temporary and capable of being proven wrong at any moment' so there is never absolute proof that anything is true
popper - unfalsifiable theories like marxism aren't worthless as they may become testable at a later date and because they can still be examined for clarity an dlogical consistency
not all puzzle-solving is successful and scientists find anomalies that contradict with their paradigms, which means they lose confidence in that paradigm
this places science in crisis as it loses its previously taken-for-granted foundations and causes arguments and efforts to reformulate the paradigm
rival paradigms are created which kuhn suggests can't be compared to one another, so neither will accept criticism or accept that they are wrong
eventually a new paradigm wins out over the others and is accepted by the scientific community, so the practice can resume with a different set of norms
kuhn - this is an irrational process similar to religious conversion and generally gains support from younger scientists first because they have less to lose from the change
contrasts with popper's view that the scientific community is open and rational
keat + urry - science isn't necessarily purely concerned with observable processes, and often assumes the existence of things that can't be observed eg. physicists can't directly observe inside a black hole
this means interpretivists are correct and sociology may be able to be scientific
both natural and social sciences explain causes of events with underlying causes and structures that we can work out by observing their effects
this means a lot of sociology can be scientific, just without controlled closed experiments