Amazon.com Widgets
  • 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

    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

  • 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.

  • This is a bugbear for the philosophy of science

    First, We need to truly define "What constitutes something as a science? " Is it the rigidity of results? Precise operationalization? Until now, Only personal axiology could answer on either social science is indeed a science or not. Even then, We value natural sciences as science just because other people value it that way, And then we rationalized the value using logic and philosophy - seems like a religion for me.

    Second, We need to truly define what's the "universe" in the definition of science. For me, We are living simultaneously in three universes: natural, Formal, And social. These three overlapped on another, And specific branches of science are dedicated to studying these universes.

    With these arguments in mind, I think it is better to just say social science is a science since even modern science recognized social science as a science, Despite its controversies in axiology.

  • Social science is a branch of science.

    Social science is an empirical science, As well as natural science, That means you get knowledge from observation and documentation. The research done by social scientist follows the scientific method, But has different ways of proving an hypothesis, Which are similar to what natural scientist do actually, Since both work with systems that change.

  • Yes it is

    If social science isn't a science, Why is it called social "SCIENCE"? If this isn't enough, Social science uses experimentation to explain a human characteristic. A clear example of this is Murphy's law which is stating that if something can go wrong it will, This is giving a cause and effect just like any other science.

  • Yes it is! - in response to some of the no arguments

    For the people stating it is not a science they clearly have not searched up the term science. Thinking that it is an easy science is the most ignorant aspect of those who say it is not a science. Social science does not help suffering and actually does quite the opposite. In recent years through the study of society and behaviour and everything else that is included for the part of "society" it has increased equality. For those saying there has been no achievement. Y'all are coherently wrong. Without social science many things have not been possible. It is important to know the way the world works and what benefits us and helps us succeed. We also use a lot of this information to create the best possible outcome. It does measure things. Additionally, For those saying its corrupt, I won't lie, It partially is but so are natural sciences and it also does not mean that they are not considered sciences. Social science helps people, And for those who do not think so, Should research it more in depth before making stupid assumptions

  • Yes! Social sciences ARE real sciences!

    We're no strangers to love - you know the rules and so do I. A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy. I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling - gotta make you understand!
    Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down. Never gonna run around and desert you. Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye. Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.
    We've known each other for so long. Your heart's been aching but you're too shy to say it. Inside we both know what's been going on. We know the game and we're gonna play it.
    And if you ask me how I'm feeling, don't tell me you're too blind to see

  • Yes! Social sciences ARE real sciences!

    We're no strangers to love - you know the rules and so do I. A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy. I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling - gotta make you understand!
    Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down. Never gonna run around and desert you. Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye. Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.
    We've known each other for so long. Your heart's been aching but you're too shy to say it. Inside we both know what's been going on. We know the game and we're gonna play it.
    And if you ask me how I'm feeling, don't tell me you're too blind to see

  • OMG, a social science degree means nothing. It is not a useful education.

    This country is so science illiterate. Science is confirming or denying an hypothesis. Then the results of the data obtained must be peer reviewed by many different science institutions. Until this is done, any data obtained is nothing more than speculation, or personal opinion. Social science is nothing more than pseudo science.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 'Positivism' is a erroneous metric that does more harm than good.

    Social Science has provided zero theories since its inception. Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim emphasis on 'positivism' has failed to provide a appropriate measure. If Karl Marx was a 'natural scientist' of his period, He would be completely discredited. So obsessed was he that communism was the end state of society.
    The arguments put forward by researchers that money is lacking is a red herring, Given the popularity of these studies at Universities within the Western democracies. Social Sciences pander to opinion and shy away from challenging religious groups and political parties. Whilst they claim to want parity with 'proper sciences' they avoid it.
    My fear is that they contaminate 'proper sciences too'. For instance Prince Charles here in the UK is very fond of alternate medicine. And yet his interference with the Smallwood report causes money to be wasted and puts people in real harm relying on discredited techniques. It is only at the insistence of social and political scientists hanging on to the notion of 'positivism' that we have to consider ideas that have failed every test that has been applied to them. It seems to me that social science is afraid of upsetting any part of any society. Imagine if Darwin or Huxley failed to challenge Wilerberforce or Owen. How much more damage would have been done.

  • Accepting religious faiths proves social science is not a genuine science.

    We know that educating women and providing equal opportunities for leadership improves life chances for everyone, Smaller more stable families and so on. It really is fundamental to the betterment of society. And yet we allow a morally bankrupt, Misogynistic belief to prevail and even influence developed societies where it does harm. Religion is both fundamentally untrue and all fundamentalist beliefs are hateful in attitude - fascist - to non-believers, Sexuality divergent, Women and science. There are and have been a myriad of religions and all religious people are aesthetics to all but one religion. Even knowing the education of women and a non-religious societies are beneficial social and political science will not tackle them in debate. They support them in there beliefs such as genital mutilation of children, Child marriage has by quoted in my arguments with social scientists as cultural. It is left to biologists, Neuroscientists and physicists to tackle the untruths and physical harm and hateful rhetoric that faith based groups inflict.

  • This is an easy question to answer. Of course it is NOT a science.

    Science means the application of the scientific method. Theories must be testable. Tests must follow certain strict guidelines and their results must be falsifiable. Social science cannot utilize science in this way. As a result, Social science is rife with bias, Prejudice, Assumptions, False conclusions and a whole lot of blather and politicking. You won't get very far in the social science field by adhering to scientific principles. In fact, You won't get anywhere. In a sense, Social science is a kind of anti-science.

  • No man who must say "i am the king" is a real king.

    Mathematics
    Information Technology
    Physics
    Medicine

    All of the above share a common trait. None of em have "sciences" in their names.

    Social "science" is a *science* only in name. Social "sciences" have nothing to do with real scientific method of observation, Testing and writing down the results. Social sciences are nothing more than politically correct cherrypicked communist field with no scientific basis.

  • Too subjective, Highly prone to bias, And does not control enough variables

    I went to school for physics and I have a pretty good understanding how much depth is required to form a truly coherent and meaningful theory. Social Science Theories jump to conclusions too quickly. Some theoretical frameworks like Postmodernism reject the Scientific Method or at least do not fully adhere to it. The Social Sciences are too prone personal biases, Political Correctness, And group think. I think calling this field a "science" gives it a dangerous air of legitimacy.


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

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.