After reading Daniele Fanelli’s article, “Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences, it can be concluded that the hierarchy of sciences is a theory formulated by Comte in the 19th century. This theory asserts that science develops over time, beginning with the simplest and most general scientific discipline, astronomy, which first reaches a “positive stage.” This theory argues that the sciences become more complex and less broad and get the positive stage later. It is based on the most prevalent and applicable to all fields of knowledge: mathematics. It is followed by the science of the universe and astronomy; physics builds and develops based on these. Chemistry is an even more complex science of the structure of the world and its laws. Having mastered the basics of these four disciplines, you can understand and build the rules of an even more complex science – biology. Finally, sociology completes this pyramid.
The principle of hierarchy is obvious. The simpler the subject, the easier it is to know it by thinking about it positively. Each successive science builds on the previous one and uses the accumulated knowledge. Each straight science is another step in understanding the world around us. The idea of a hierarchy of sciences has not proved to be the most robust. Subsequently, there have been few attempts to popularize the idea that sociology should be the queen of the sciences.
I believe that sociology is the basic science without which people would not understand so many important things, for example, how society affects the human mind and how to build a good community. This is why sociology is at the top of the hierarchy. This science is indispensable because, without this knowledge, people would not be able to develop properly.
An article by Raymond W. Mack, titled “How Scientific Is Social Science?” addresses a very important question. Unlike most other sciences, I believe that sociology is a soft science whose claims are built on people’s observations with their senses: “Most work in sociology relies on observational data” (Molina & Garip, 2019, p. 10). This science is indispensable because human beings are social creatures; if there is no society, people will return to their original state. It is necessary to pay attention not only to the exact sciences but also sociology to understand how modern society works.
In my opinion, society can influence anyone in its way. Having studied the mechanisms of sociology’s work, a person can control and handle this influence himself. Sociology makes it possible to find answers to questions about society, vital existence, and the global problems of humanity. Normal development of any society is impossible without knowledge of the real state of affairs in the community, without understanding the processes occurring in it. Thus, I can say that the need to study sociology exists today and will exist in the future because the need to understand the intricacies of interaction between people will never fade away.
David J. Hanson’s article Values and Social Science says that values are certain cultural standards from which individuals and entire social groups determine what social good, justice, virtue, beauty, and broadly normative attitudes toward various manifestations of social life are. Values are statements of what is culturally appropriate and are the basis of certain preferences that people hold to be true. Their factual content is usually overlooked. Cultural values and beliefs not only influence our perception of the environment but also shape the human personality.
I think that complete freedom from values is not only impossible but also undesirable for sociology. The question of sociology’s value neutrality, like the value interest of sociological cognition, emerged with the formation of sociology as an independent science and has accompanied it throughout its historical development. Undesirable values in social science are only those values that lead to false conclusions and conclusions.
Richard S. Kirkendall’s article Social Science in California’s Central Valley addresses the issue of people’s interactions. I should mention that attitudes toward people often depend on their point of view on certain things. People are so constructed that those who share their point of view are loved and considered allies, while those whose point of view differs even slightly from theirs are criticized and disliked. This problem has been around for a long time and has a simple answer: people love their kind. In today’s world, the situation has changed somewhat; people are more likely to accept the opinions of others and less likely to judge them. It will take a few more decades to completely solve this problem and improve society and the relationships between people.
Reference
Molina, M., & Garip, F. (2019). Machine learning for sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 45, 27-45.