BETWEEN METHOD

AND POLITICS
Can Sociology be Scientific?
Science?
◦ What is Science?
◦ What makes knowledge scientific?
◦ Problem with Relativism?
◦ Can Science be Science without Method?
Relativism as Science..?
 Against Relativism – Karl Popper
◦ Karl Popper: Rational scientific work is the application
of general rules of good science to particular
instances. Should put your theory to harshest possible
tests. Never believing your theory.
◦ All theory is falsifiable..
◦ The more generally applicable a theory is greater is its
value
◦ Kuhn goes against the falsification idea..
 Science as Paradigm
◦Science develops in a cyclical
form. Once science develops
the same pattern repeats
itself.
◦Four Phases: Pre-paradigmatic
science, Normal Science, Crisis
and Scientific Revolutions.
◦Incommensurability
Paradigm for Kuhn
◦ A paradigm is a fundamental image of the subject
matter within a science. It serves to define what should
be studied, what questions should be asked, how they
should be asked, and what rules should be followed in
interpreting the answer obtained. The paradigm is the
broadest unit of consensus within a science and serves
to differentiate one scientific community (or sub-
community) from another. It subsumes, defines and
inter-relates the exemplars, theories, methods and
instruments that exist within it.
 Normal science
◦ A phase where people share the same paradigm - Normal
science is characterized by a consensus about the
fundamentals of the respective field
◦ However there will always be a phenomenon that a given
paradigm cannot explain.
◦ Revolutions take place between periods of normal science.(
Eg. Lavoisier was not able to quantify everything – could
quantify his own element – caloric)
◦ Every paradigm encounters anomalies. As anomalies build-
up – a challenge is posed to the paradigm.
How do paradigms emerge?
◦ Researchers observe phenomena
◦ Various "pre-paradigmatic" interpretations emerge and
compete
◦ One interpretation seems better than the others, and
gains more and more adherents
◦ That interpretation becomes a "paradigm"
After a paradigm is created…
◦A paradigm transforms a group into a profession or,
at least, a discipline.
◦From this follows the formation of specialized
journals, the foundation of professional bodies and a
claim to a special place in academe.
◦ There is a promulgation of scholarly articles
"addressed only to professional colleagues, [those]
whose knowledge of a shared paradigm can be
assumed and who prove to be the only ones able to
read the papers addressed to them".
Once a paradigm exists…
◦ It resists change
◦ Why?
 Lavoisiers paradigm
◦ Lavoisier came up with a new idea for study of
chemistry
◦ Need to measure and develop mathematical
character of the processes you are studying
◦ Chemistry before Lavoisier was mainly practiced by
Pharmacists (not interested in understanding the
characteristics of materials – rather mixing material
for cure of patients)
◦ Lavoisier introduced a new paradigm → equipment,
mathematical techniques, lets not be pharmacist
but like physicists.
Anomaly
◦Problem within the paradigm that scientists are
at present unable to solve. If the number of
anomalies keep on growing then the scientists
start doubting their own paradigm.
◦Till the scientists are confident that they can solve
these anomalies the paradigm survives
Crisis
◦From crisis - we may go back to Normal Science
or to Scientific Revolution. They start to think
outside the box. A new paradigm may emerge
→ scientific revolution
Revolution
◦ One paradigm is abandoned and an entirely new one
is accepted — paradigm shift. For instance Darwinian
revolution, could define science for decades or even
for centuries.
Paradigms and Progress
◦ Earlier Science was understood as accumulation. But for
Kuhn, the movement from paradigm to paradigm
(scientific revolution) meant erasure of one.
◦ Was the old one better? or the new one? They cannot
be compared for Kuhn
◦ Rival paradigms are incommensurable. There’s no
neutral objective way to say which is better. Progress
comes between revolutions.
◦ Criticism - Paradigms are not really incommensurable.
 Incommensurability..
◦Well the older one had a paradigm – Phlogiston
◦The Newer one had a paradigm -- Chemical
Revolution
◦Which paradigm is better – the old or the new?
◦Kuhn suggests that certain virtues could help us
decide on which one is better – Simplicity, Broad
Scope and Success.
◦Oops! Is Kuhn Relativistic?
 Kuhn Backs OFF
◦ For Sociologist – CANNOT UNDERSTAND SCIENCE IF YOU DO
NOT PLAY SCIENCE IN SOCIETY..
◦ KUHN – No, we should look at SCIENCE ITSELF
◦ How does the new paradigm emerge? Anything to do with
socio-political?
◦ Paul Feyerabend, ultimately rejected any prescriptive
methodology and argued that the only universal method
characterizing a scientific progress was “anything goes”
Paul Fayerabend Walks In – Against
Method
Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic
Theory of Knowledge (1975)

◦Previously lot of CLARITY on methods of science.

◦The New theory must be consistent with already
well established theories and it must correspond
to well established facts.
◦For Feyerabend both these conditions are
illegitimate. Their acceptance hinders the
progress of science
And correspondence..
◦ New theory might fail to correspond to facts
because facts themselves may degenerate to the
sense, they are interpreted consciously or otherwise
in terms of a theory which is itself questionable and
whose questionability we have not realized since
our thinking has been constrained by it.
◦ New theory must be allowed to grow, even if it goes
against well-known facts. Since science in its history
has violated every possible norm, we must give up
the very idea of the scientific method.
On Incommensurability thesis
◦ The relationship between successive theories in
science is incommensurable. Provides new
arguments in favour of the incommensurability thesis
propounded by Kuhn.
◦Against Methodological Monism of Popper - In Social
Sciences the Verstehen School contended that the
aim of natural sciences was “explanation” and that
of social sciences “understanding”, with the result
their methods radically differ from each other.
Methodological Anarchy

◦ However, the Verstehen School conceded to its

opponents that there is something called the
method of natural sciences.
◦ Repudiates the very idea that there is something
called “the” method in natural sciences.
◦ For — Methodological pluralism, neither natural
sciences nor social sciences have “one” method.
◦ Kuhn - Paradigmatic Stage whereas Feyerabend
Post-Paradigmatic
Method = Anything Goes?
So what Does it Mean for Sociology?
Sociology as a science with multiple
paradigms within..
◦Sociology of Science – anthropological
gaze of science – not about winners and
losers in science. But more trying to
understand why certain scientific view
become prevalent.