There is a debate regarding this issue, some sociologists regard their subject as a social science, whilst scientists can not see the connection between the two subjects.
Positivist sociologists are of the opinion that sociology should be seen as a science. Consequently they conduct their sociological research similarly to that of scientific research, following the conventional scientific model in order to gain information. This particular school of sociology was initiated by the work of two of the founding fathers of sociology, Comte and Quetelet. They believed that just like causes and effects within science, causes and effects within society could be proved by the use of statistics. Also just as there are general scientific laws which explain the nature and order of the world, there are general laws which explain the nature of society. Examples of this scientific approach include Emile Durkheim's study of suicide (in which he used the comparative method) and the work of Karl Marx, who believed that there were laws of economics. Additionally sociologists, Mayhew and Rowntree formed the basis of the British empirical tradition, which is an approach where the collection of data is concentrated on rather than a particular theory.
Sociology has been shown to be compatible as a science for it fits in with certain key components of science. Scientific knowledge is empirical, the evidence can be seen all around us, it is knowable through our senses', and therefore can be measured. Likewise evidence for sociological research can be seen all around us and according to Durkheim social facts (which hold constraints and limits over our behaviour) are measurable, and theories can be tested for validity.
Science and sociology can produce theoretical statements and general predictions, science in regards to the behaviour of nature and sociology in regards to the behaviour of groups of people. Durkheim for example noticed that there was a higher rate of suicide amongst certain group of people than others. The knowledge gained by both scientists and sociologists is cumulative. The evidence and statistics are gathered over the years, accumulating a stock of information on the relative subject. Physical sciences and sociology both use methodological processes, which produce objective results. Scientists use conventional experiments in labs, while sociologists like Durkheim and Weber used the comparative method (or multi-variate analysis) which is a sociological experiment.
Sayer (1992) saw that there was a similarity between physical sciences such as meteorology and seismology (which study the weather and earthquakes) and sociology. They both have uncontrollable variables and a sense of unpredictability.
There can be problems in regards to moral values with science and sociology, scientific research can harm as well as benefit society, for example cigarettes is a result of science which is now a huge killer in Western societies. Certain sociological research methods are questionable such as participant observation, where researchers join in private groups under false pretences and in some cases this could become dangerous if they were caught.
On the other hand traditional scientists and interpretive sociologists do not view sociology as a science, believing that sociology does not fit the criteria of a science. There is no predictability involved with people due to their freewill, consequently because everyone is unique and individual sociologists cannot make theoretical statements, predicting people's behaviour. However natural objects which are researched in science cannot be spontaneous, they just react in accordance with nature, so predictions can be made.
Scientists argue that they simply record and measure the natural world, which is independent of humans. Sociology on the other hand is the study of society which is a creation of man-kind, so there are no unknown phenomena waiting to be measured. Science also occurs within closed systems, where the variables of an experiment can be controlled. Scientists argue that experiments cannot be carried out in sociology for society is an open system with uncontrollable variables.
Also there is a question of objectivity raised by scientists in regard to sociology. Science requires rationality, however sociology deals with issues which induce strong emotions, so how can personal feelings and values remain separated from the choice of subject and methods of research?
There is yet another side to this argument, where sociologists on examining science in the same way as scientists do with sociology have seen that science itself falls short of the set criteria of a science. Kuhn (1962) argues that one of the key components of science is questionable; this is that science is cumulative. According to Kuhn, scientific knowledge is not accumulated over time, which scientists argue; instead science progresses in a process of scientific revolutions.
Scientists work within a framework (a paradigm) of accepted knowledge, which controls the investigations and scientific thought. Scientists who have new ideas and go against the accepted paradigm are ignored, in time evidence is collected which does not fit into the accepted paradigm, and eventually a new framework which accepts advanced knowledge is formed which becomes the accepted, normal paradigm. Therefore it can be argued that sociology can be seen more as a science than science itself, as it is empirical, testable, theoretical, objective as well as cumulative.
In summary, after studying the views of sociologists and scientists I am inclined to believe that sociology is a social science, it having more similarities with science than dissimilarites. Also it is important that sociology should be seen as a science for without this distinction the subject would lose its status and consequent prestige and funding.