robert-brydie replied to your post: Today I learned that feminist epistemology does…
I think “the” scientific method is incompatibly with sociology, as well as the practice of the natural sciences. Methodological pluralism enables the adaptation of the most suitable method of researching the object of study.That is true. I forget that the scientific method of the natural sciences has its differences.
I disagree. To use the words of Durkheim, “Indeed our main objective is to extend the scope of scientific rationalism to cover human behavior by demonstrating that, in the light of the past, it is capable of being reduced to relationship of cause and effect, which, by an operation no less rational, can then be transformed into rules of action for the future” (1895).
The purpose of our science is to determine why society behaves the way it does: to determine the cause and effect relationships that drive social interaction and development. To do this, I believe, like Durkheim, we should rely on the method that proven itself objectively reliable and valid: the scientific method.
Methodological pluralism doesn’t say that we can’t or shouldn’t use the scientific method. It’s saying that there is more than one to understand the world. The scientific method helps to remove bias and become more objective, but it doesn’t remove them completely. I value the scientific method and I think its important, but you can’t understand the world by handing out surveys alone.
“…You can’t understand the world by handing out surveys alone.”
Your reductionist conception of methods shows either you have not studied the subject or you just did not pay enough attention. Sociological methodology employs much more than simply handing out surveys. In addition, the scientific method is not a constraint on our objectivity, it is our path to objectivity. The better we are at using the scientific method (and how technology allows us to interact with it), the more objective our understanding of sociological phenomena will be.
And never underestimate the power of a survey. Just take a look at the General Social Survey, which relies on in-person interviews and a relatively small sample size, yet is able to educe information about our world that has been shown to be reliable and valid again and again.
I’m curious what epistomological framework, specific to Sociology, your idea of methodological pluralism stems from?
