• Social science is part of Science.

    Science is defined as a systematized body of knowledge acquired through experimentation and logical deduction from the observed phenomenon. On the other hand, social science is a branch of science that consists of the disciplined and systematic study of society and its institutions, and of how and why people behave as they do, both as individuals and in groups within society. One particular branch of social science is the Economics. I've been studying Economics for as long as I can remember and well, for your information, it uses scientific methods like that of science. Also, information are obtained through experimentation. And when we say experimentation, we don't always mean an experiment in the laboratory involving chemicals or the like. Experimentation could also be done in a different place and not involving chemicals. It could be done through observation. So, Social science includes Economics which makes use of scientific methods and experimentation. Science uses scientific methods and experimentation. Therefore, Social science is a Science.

  • Yes it is

    I do believe that here in the United States of America as well as the rest of the world that social science is indeed a real science. It is a science because it also gives the same thought process along with other things that are true to regular science we think of.

  • Yes, it is

    Really a science because we need to research and everything has science like we study of systematic study of everything. It is all about the sports we play, animals, jobs we do, how to follow rules weather, religion, tradition, war, politics, villages,water bodies, environment.Thus it is a real science !

  • No No No

    F f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f ff f f ff f ff f ff f f f f f ff f f ff

  • No No No

    F f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f ff f f ff f ff f ff f f f f f ff f f ff

  • Depends on where you draw the line for science.

    You defined science as the “systematized body of knowledge acquired through experimentation and logical deduction from the observed phenomenon.” Given this definition, I would say that social science is a science. But I define science more narrowly. Part of what makes science, science, is that It is held to a rigorous standard of particular practices, including but not limited to, the strict isolation of variables, meticulous data collecting methods, painstaking avoidance of any potential sample contamination, among others. While it is true that it is literally impossible to entirely control the parameters of any experiment, science comes pretty darn close. If you adhere to this revised definition, then social sciences are lacking in quite a few qualities. Motivation, thoughts, values--these are all very difficult (if not impossible) things to quantify and measure. They also are an integral part of the economist’s job and the social worker’s job alike. While the social science field has tried to stick closely to observable behavior, i.e. - spending patterns or emotional outbursts, it does so at the expense of omitting valuable data, however difficult it may be to measure. While I recognize and even appreciate the intention of drawing near unto science, I agree with the post above that there is certainly a political agenda behind labeling it so. Funding flows toward organizations and collective goals that are most likely to succeed. In the modern world, this means those who employ the scientific method to ensure the best likelihood for the desired outcome. There are groups who actually lobby before congress to establish the social field as a science, thereby ensuring funding is bolstered. I, for one, do not agree funding should be so dramatically lopsided in favor of those who can prove their efforts. It lends itself to skewed publishing and neglect of some very important ideals, on the basis they cannot be corroborated, like the social field. Though I’ve rambled a bit, I hope this clarifies some of the argument against.

  • No, science explains the universe

    Social science should not actually be considered science. Science using experimental methods to predict and quantify specific behaviors about the observable universe. Social science does not do any of that. To say that it is science is not an accurate representation of what science is all about. They should change the name to something else.

  • No, social science is not a science.

    I do not believe that social science is a really science. I think that it is something that was given a term by people who have political agendas to make some social issues a lot more important than they really are. I think that such a thing shouldn't be given any merit.

  • It's soft science.

    No, social science is not really a science, because it is not something that can be fairly proven or disproven. Social science is something that can change over time. Science is what's right and wrong. There is not a situation when it can change. But social science often changes, and it depends on the feelings of the sociologist.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.