What are some of the reasons for 'objectivity' being more complicated in social sciences, particularly disciplines like sociology?
Objectivity is more complicated in social sciences like sociology because achieving unbiased knowledge based solely on facts is much harder than in natural sciences. Being 'objective' requires ignoring one's own feelings or attitudes, which is difficult to practice in sociology.
A major problem is that there are many versions of the 'truth' in the social world. Things look different from different vantage points, involving many competing interpretations of reality. For example, a shopkeeper and customer may have different ideas about a 'good' price. There is no simple way of judging which interpretation is correct.
Additionally, competing and mutually incompatible schools of thought coexist within the discipline. The traditional notion of an 'objective, disinterested' social science is no longer considered attainable, and objectivity is now seen as the goal of a continuous, ongoing process rather than an already achieved end result.
Explanation
The textbook highlights three key reasons for objectivity being complicated in sociology: (1) It is harder to be objective in social sciences than natural sciences because ignoring personal feelings and attitudes is difficult; (2) The social world has multiple versions of 'truth' - things appear different from different vantage points, making it hard to judge which interpretation is correct; (3) Competing and incompatible schools of thought coexist within sociology, making the traditional notion of objectivity unattainable. The chapter emphasizes that objectivity should be understood as an ongoing process, not an achieved end result.