When it comes to answering the question "Is sociology a science?", two more questions arise: "Can a discipline use the procedures of natural science?" and "Can sociology hope to obtain the same exact, evidence-based knowledge of the physical world that the natural sciences have created?" These questions contradict each other to some extent. However, for a long time, most sociologists answered them in the affirmative. They argued that sociology could and should imitate natural science. This applies to the procedures and the nature of their results. This position is sometimes called positivism.
Now this view can be considered naïve. Like other social sciences, sociology is a scientific discipline in the sense that it involves systematic research methods, data analysis, and the testing of theories by facts and logical arguments. Studying people is naturally different from observing events in the physical world. Neither the logical constructions nor the conclusions of sociology can be evaluated in the same way as in the natural sciences. When we study social life, we deal with the activities of people. Unlike natural objects, humans are conscious beings. Therefore, it is impossible to describe social life accurately enough without taking into account the meaning of people's behavior. For example, to describe a death by suicide, it is necessary to establish whether the person intended to commit suicide. Suicide occurs only when the individual actively seeks self-destruction. A person who happens to be in front of a car and is killed by it cannot be considered a suicide. This man didn't want to die.
The fact that people can be studied in the same way as natural objects is, in some respects, an advantage of sociology. But this creates difficulties that the natural sciences do not face. Sociology is different from the natural sciences. The advantage of sociologists is that they are able to ask people questions. However, people who know that their activities are being monitored often behave differently than usual. For example, when people answer questions, they may intentionally misrepresent themselves. They may even try to give the researcher the answers to their questions that they want to hear from them.
Sociologists strive to be independent in their research and theoretical constructions. They try to explore the social world with an open mind. A good sociologist always discards prejudices that may prevent him from honestly considering the obvious. However, no one can be completely free, because the ability to develop such an attitude to an impartial and free attitude to the problem in people is limited. Objectivity does not depend entirely or largely on the views of specific researchers. It deals with methods of observation and argumentation. The public nature of the discipline is important here, since the conclusions and reports of the researcher are open to criticism. They are published in articles, monographs, or books. Everyone can check their conclusions. Statements made on the basis of the researcher's conclusions can be subjected to critical analysis regardless of the researcher's own desire.
Thus, objectivity in sociology is achieved through mutual criticism that exists between members of the sociological community. Much of what has been studied in sociology is contradictory. This is due to disputes and conflicts in society. But with the help of public discussions, demonstration of the evidence and logical correctness of arguments, such problems can be effectively and well analyzed.
Sociology has many practical implications for our lives. Sociological thinking and research influence political decision-making and social reform in several ways. It has the most direct impact through clarification and a more adequate understanding of the situation. This is due to the facts or a better understanding of what is happening in society.
