In defence of sociology: a reply to some contemporary philosophical criticisms.

Defending sociologist's right to exist is as old as sociology itself. So it is hardly surprising that it is possible to cite the work of classical figures in its development when rejecting the stringent criticisms of three contemporary British philosophers. Their criticisms are modern variants of the old case against social science. The three philosophers are Peter Winch, A. R. Louch, and Alasdair Maclntyre. Taken together they present three arguments which would, if acceptable, invalidate the basis of sociology. The first contends that sociologists fail to recognize quite how social reality differs from nature. The second, in its extreme form, states that the concept cause is only applicable to the natural world, so that causal accounts of social phenomena are, by definition, the product of conceptual confusion. The third holds that cross-cultural analysis is impossible. The philosopher's most profound mistake is to equate all sociology with accounting for human action qua action, i.e. explaining why actors act as they do. Correspondingly their most serious omission is their failure to consider the meaning of social structure.