Empathetic methods of sociologists versus natural scientists. Science produces similar types of knowledge, producing laws of cause and effect. Many believe sociology should be a science as it would improve the status, attract more funding. Interpretivist views believe sociology cannot be a science. The natural sciences deal with inanimate chemicals, people have freewill, thought and opinions, sociological research must seek to uncover these. Qualitative methods are unscientific, use small samples so you cannot formulate generalised causal laws, such laws cannot be applied to humans.Sociologies competing perspectives, paradigms, Kuhn. (realist=even science isn't a science) argues science isn't objective and believes science is a paradigm (a shared set of assumptions, principles and methods) Science studies the world until it finds conclusions it can't explain (anomalies). These anomalies cause us to consider other paradigms in order to find answers. Two paradigms cannot exist together, at some point one wins favour amongst the scientific community, this causes a scientific revolution , a shift from one to the other. This process starts all over again as this new paradigm highlights new anomalies. 'Sociology is better than science because we are pre-paradigmatic' - we have lots of theories, constant adaptations. Paradigm shift - old paradigms are rejected.See an expert-written answer!We have an expert-written solution to this problem!