by Patricia Rockwell

Created on: January 08, 2009

Before debating what should and should not be labeled a science, we must first consider what academic disciplines actually exist and what they typically call themselves. In the natural or physical (or "true" if you will) sciences one finds biology, physics, astronomy, geology, anatomy, among others. In the social science camp, one finds psychology, sociology, anthropology, criminology, communication, linguistics, and a variety of other disciplines or sub-disciplines. You will note that I include quite a few more disciplines within the boundaries of "social sciences" than just sociology. The deciding factor as to what constitutes a "social" science seems fairly obvious. Social sciences have something to do with social phenomenathat is, with people and how they interact. The natural or physical sciences concern things (or with the physical components of peoplephysiology, for instance). We can further separate both social science and physical science from the humanities, which include disciplines such as art, drama, music, literature, foreign language, dance, history, and others.

It should be noted that historically of the three (humanities, science, social science) we can probably agree that the humanities have been around the longest (music, dance, art, etc.), followed by science (physics, astronomy, etc.), with the social sciences being a fairly recent development and an offshoot of science. Now the question is, "Are the social sciences really science?" Before we can answer this question, we must determine our criterion. That is, what constitutes a "real" science? You can find as many answers for this question as there are researchers. Common responses would suggest that any science must include adjectives such as "empirical," "theoretical," "predicting," "methodic," and "objective" among others.

Much social science research today follows standards set forth in rigorous scientific methodology. The qualms that some critics have regarding the ability of social scientists to make genuine predictions about anything so fleeting as human intention have more than been answered by substantive research that confirms the typicality of much human behavior. That is, Uncle Jim may not shake a person's hand when he meets someone for the first time, but just about everyone else does. This is valuable information. I know, I know. There are no exceptions to gravity, but, so what? Is the purpose of science to discount all information unless it fits within very specific criteria

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>