Sociology. Anthony Giddens
theoretical questions concerned with why things happen the way they do. Some sociologists work primarily on empirical questions, but unless their research is guided by some knowledge of theory their findings are unlikely to be particularly illuminating (see table 2.1). At the same time, sociologists do not pursue theoretical knowledge for its own sake, as this runs the risk of falling into pure speculation far removed from the evidence. Reliable sociological knowledge is essentially theoretical-empirical in character. The combination of empirical research alongside theorizing is a key defining characteristic of all scientific disciplines, and sociology is no exception.
In the early nineteenth century, Auguste Comte described sociology as an emerging science that should adopt the successful methods of the natural sciences such as physics and chemistry. Durkheim, Marx and other founders also saw sociology as a scientific subject, but today many sociologists are not so sure. Can social life be studied in a scientific way? Should it be? Are Laud Humphreys’ observations on the tearooms scientific, and what is ‘science’ anyway? Perhaps surprisingly there is no simple or agreed answer to that last question. The best way to understand why is to take a whistle-stop tour of key arguments from studies in the philosophy and history of science, which should help us to understand the academic status of sociology.
Imprisonment of offenders is common across many societies, but to understand how similar or different these are requires comparative empirical studies of penal regimes.
Table 2.1 The sociologist’s line of questioning
| Factual question | What happened? | It is reported that some men in China use dating apps to find male sexual partners. |
| Comparative question | Did this happen everywhere? | Is this a widespread phenomenon, or is it occurring only in China? Is the behaviour restricted to self-identifying gay men? |
| Developmental question | Has this happened over time? | What methods have men used in the past to find male sexual partners? Are they essentially similar to or different from the use of dating apps? |
| Theoretical question | What underlies this phenomenon? | Why are men now using apps rather than older methods? What factors should we look at that might explain this changing behaviour? |
In chapter 1, ‘What is Sociology?’, Comte argued that the positive stage of human knowledge produces reliable, valid knowledge that would, ultimately, enable progressive interventions into nature and society. Science is superior to all previous routes to knowledge and a prerequisite for development in the modern world. For Comte, science is an essentially unitary endeavour. That is, all scientific subjects use a similar method, which means that the social and natural sciences are not fundamentally different. Science begins with observation and the collection of data, then proceeds to look for patterns within the observed facts, before moving on to develop general theories which provide explanations of the evidence. This ‘ground-up’ process of research is known as induction. However, Comte’s argument is rooted in a rather idealized picture of science that is not based on the actual practice of scientists. From the early twentieth century, this inductive description of science began to be overturned.
Positivism and the philosophy of science
In 1920s Austria, an influential group of philosophers, known as the Vienna Circle, set out important modifications to Comte’s positivist position. In particular, they tried to clarify what counts as ‘science’ and why the statements scientists make about the world can be accepted as ‘true’. They focused on logic and deductive reasoning rather than simple induction and their approach was described as logical positivism. This recognized that scientists do not go around collecting data and later try to explain what they find (inductive method). Rather, they begin by formulating hypotheses – clearly framed questions or statements about some aspect of reality – and then set out to collect empirical evidence that will verify these (hypothetico-deductive method). To be scientifically valid, they argued, scientific statements and theories always have to be tested against evidence. This is unlike other forms of ‘knowledge’. For example, it is just not possible to say that any particular moral standpoint on poverty or an aesthetic judgement about what is beautiful is ‘true’, however much we debate these subjects. Statements in these fields do not uncover truths about the world and are therefore scientifically meaningless.
Logical positivists adopt a correspondence theory of truth which accepts statements as true only where they ‘correspond’ exactly with what exists in the real world. Hence the key to valid knowledge is empirical verification, and it is the job of scientists constantly to seek out evidence which supports their statements. Logical positivism was highly influential in defining what constitutes a scientific approach to knowledge. But by the late 1930s its central principle of verification was under attack.
Sir Karl Popper (1902–94), a former member of the Vienna Circle, provided the most systematic critique of logical positivism. Popper argued that verification is not a powerful principle, as almost any theory, however unrealistic, can find some evidence that supports its arguments. Verification can never definitively settle theoretical disputes. A much stronger principle is disconfirmation. Broad theories should lead to hypotheses which are, in principle at least, capable of being falsified. Scientists then actively seek out cases that disconfirm or falsify their own hypotheses. In this way, one disconfirming case can tell us much more about the world than thousands of instances of verification ever could (Delanty 1997: 31–2). For instance, we may hypothesize that ‘all swans are white’ and set out to verify this statement. Yet, however many white swans we observe, the hypothesis can never be proved true because non-white swans might still exist. But we need to find just a single black swan in order conclusively to falsify our hypothesis and find a simple truth about the world – not all swans are white.
Karl Popper saw Marxism and Freudian psychoanalysis as unscientific because they offer no criteria for falsification. No amount of verification makes for a solid scientific theory – for instance, no matter how many white swans a researcher might find, it does not rule out the possibility of the existence of a black swan.
Popper suggests that the best hypotheses are not cautious ones but ‘bold conjectures’ which offer the potential for significant knowledge gains. Yet most scientific knowledge is never accepted as universally ‘true’ as it is always open (potentially) to being falsified. In fifty years’ time all black swans may have died out, making our accepted truth about swans (they’re not all white) incorrect. All we