Why can't scientists just get along with sociologists?

Question

This question is for the scientists mainly, but anyone can answer. I know the negative feedback I'll get and that you work harder etc etc, but sociology is completly a different disciple. Instead of working against each other, why cant they complement each other?

Fizixx:
”Scientists deal with facts and observation.”
Ok take something like ‘race’. A biologist could argue that it doesn’t exist. But we know it exists in our minds, as a social reality. One is a scientific fact, and the other is a social fact. So in this sense, both disciplines deal with facts and observation. Although I have come across some really funny theories, I know the discipline needs a lot of work.

Yes I agree behaviour is largely emotional. But sociologists do not deal with the individuals; they study society and social action by examining groups and social institutions. Another thing is if they deal with societal behaviour, they right how they see it. As I said, although it might not be a scientific fact, it’s a social reality however irrational that may be. I agree though that we can’t necessarily always give a correct predictions.

mike453683: can i ask whether your a sociologist? Because most scientists wouldn't agree.

Answer 1

I don't think scientists have a problem with getting along with sociologists. But I do believe that a lot of scientists (including myself) will argue that sociology is not a science (at least not in the traditional sense).

The power of science is the scientific method. You start with an idea, then you do an experiment, you analyze the experiment, you can then modify that original idea based on the results, and then repeat this process. One extremely important part of this method is that you should be able to come up with tests that can be used to prove your original theory wrong. For instance relativity assumes that nothing (with a non zero rest mass) can travel faster than the speed of light. So if you could measure an object traveling faster than the speed of light then you could prove that relativity was wrong.

In fields like sociology, philosophy, cultural anthropology ... it is very difficult if not impossible to come up with tests that could definitively prove any theory wrong. The problem is that I could come up with a reasonably sounding theory based off of some observations someone else could come up with a different reasonable theory, and there is no way to tell who is correct. In the end the verdict of which theory is deemed "correct" can be strongly influenced by personal opinions, gut instincts, the ability of on side to argue their point compared to the other, etc. This is not science. Just because something sounds reasonable dose not make it fact.

But don't get me, even though I don't consider these fields science, I find them very interesting and worth wild
.

Answer 2

To be honest I don't think I really thought there was any kind of rivalry there, but thinking about it, I guess what pops into my head is the following.

Scientists deal with facts and observation. Events and occurrences that are repeatable. Sociologists deal, in essence, with behavior. Behavior is largely emotional....actions according to beliefs or feel. These kinds of things are often irrational or erratic. There are certainly 'tendencies', but you can't necessarily always predict actions or behavior all the time. Different people assimilate information and feedback differently. Different psyche's, different backgrounds, different surroundings often breed enough differences among people as individuals that it can influence the overall behavior of a larger group.

Case in point. Remember that White Snake concert a few years ago in Rhode Island I think it was where all those people died in a fire? Well....I saw clips of that and it was pretty clear to me that the 'pyro' was NOT part of the show. So, as an individual I think most people would agree, but as a group, and granted....alcohol probably contributed to the thinking process.....but still....they all stuck around....and you heard what the result was. Would a sociologist be able to predict that outcome each time with a high degree of accuracy? I would say no. Scientists deal with things that do not have emotions or motives, nor are they influenced today by alcohol and tomorrow drugs...money....power.... and so on.

Interesting question.

Answer 3

One, is humbly striving to know as much as possible, while being underpaid overworked, unappreciated and misunderstood. The other arrogantly thinks they know everything and have all the answers.

Which is which depends on whether you are a sociologist or a scientist.
Complement each other???
That would mean having to be in the same room!!

Answer 4

Sociology is a science, and sociologists are scientists. I have never heard of any problems from one scientific discipline to another.

Answer 5

At one point they used to be the same person. Look at Socrates, Aristotle, etc.

Then they branched out and never agreed on anything again.
Must be the phobia of getting discovered. Because there is but one truth and not many.

Answer 6

As a geologist currently engaged to historian/sociologist I can safely report that we're getting on fine.

Answer 7

the reality your reading out the on an known basis mail tells me alot approximately your self, women individuals isn't enhanced to men in technology/engineering its what men created over hundreds of years, you quite learn women doing something in history through fact its purely that each and each person they have been doing is cooking, socialising and making infants, on a similar time as men we are out attempting to make extra efficient capacity of surviving over hundreds of years its going to account to some differences interior the suggestions which will nicely be considered each and all the time.

Answer 8

It's ALL about the academic 'conflict' between the two basic types of academic pursuits---the "POETS" and the "MATHEMATICIANS"