Answer the question below using the attachments and links below. Link 1: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2096141 How do sociologists use theory? And what do you think

P1: FRK

June 10, 2002 12:5 Annual Reviews AR163-FM

A
nn

u.
R

ev
. S

oc
io

l.
20

02
.2

8:
1-

19
. D

ow
nl

oa
de

d
fr

om
w

w
w

.a
nn

ua
lr

ev
ie

w
s.

or
g

A
cc

es
s

pr
ov

id
ed

b
y

26
01

:4
c1

:4
00

0:
4f

c0
:2

94
9:

e6
2a

:3
bf

1:
98

55
o

n
03

/1
9/

23
. F

or
p

er
so

na
l u

se
o

nl
y.

10 Jun 2002 20:0 AR AR163-01.tex AR163-01.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18)P1: IKH
10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141122

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2002. 28:1–19
doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141122

Copyright c© 2002 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

BARKING UP THE WRONG BRANCH: Scientific
Alternatives to the Current Model of
Sociological Science

Stanley Lieberson and Freda B. Lynn
Department of Sociology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138;
e-mail: [email protected]

Key Words experimentation, evidence, evolution, Darwin, physics

A fortiori it is unlikely that a mere repetition of the tricks which served us so
well in physics will do for the social phenomena too.

(John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern 1944, p. 6)

I do not think the relationship between theory and measurement in the social
sciences is much like what Kuhn describes for physics. Talcott Parsons was
right about the lack of interaction between the two in sociology. If Kuhn
is right about the preconditions for such interaction in physics, and if physics
is the model for sociology, then it will be a long time before measurement
makes an important contribution to sociology as a basic science. . . .

But sociology is not like physics. Nothing but physics is like physics. . . .
(Otis Dudley Duncan 1984, p. 169)

¦ Abstract The standard for what passes as scientific sociology is derived from
classical physics, a model of natural science that is totally inappropriate for sociology.
As a consequence, we pursue goals and use criteria for success that are harmful and
counterproductive. Even those dismissing such efforts use the standards of physics as
grounds for their objection. Although recognizing that no natural science can serve as an
automatic template for our work, we suggest that Darwin’s work on evolution provides a
far more applicable model for linking theory and research since he dealt with obstacles
far more similar to our own. This includes drawing rigorous conclusions based on
observational data rather than true experiments; an ability to absorb enormous amounts
of diverse