Is Sociology a science?

Professor Richard Feynman was a Nobel Prize-winning Physicist for his work on Quantum Eletrodynamics and worked on the Manhatten project. He was also a well-known critic of "pseudo-science" as he saw it.

Could we summarise his argument against social science as follows?

1. Because science has been very successful, scientists have a lot of influence
2. It’s important that the general population believe things that are true
3. So we should only use "science" for reliable sources of knowledge
4. Science is the process of interpreting data to derive predictive laws
5. It is very easy to make mistakes when interpreting data
6. So rigorous checks of those interpretations are required to be sure that they are reliable
7. Social science does not involve rigorous checks
8. So social science is not reliable
9. Therefore social science should not be called a "science"

If this is an accurate way of representing Professor Feynman’s view, what do we think of it?

What is sociology?

Auguste Comte was the inventor of Sociology in the nineteenth century and he believed that it needed to have a scientific basis. A short account of Comte’s legacy in Sociology can be found here.

Is the following statement from the linked text important?

Unlike natural scientists, sociologists rarely conduct experiments, since limited research resources and ethical guidelines prevent large-scale experimental manipulation of social groups.

Karl Popper set the agenda for much of the philosophy of science with his Falsificationism. This has been the starting point for most discussion in Philosophy of Science since, as he presents a compelling view.

How well do Popper’s ideas fit with Professor Feynman’s argument? If we accept Popper’s position what does this mean for Sociology’s status as a Science?

This view of science was challenged by Thomas Kuhn in the most referenced and controversial work of the 20th century. He challenged the view of science as having a fixed paradigm and put forward a view of a much more revolutionary activity where the rules of Science are up for grabs.

Should this lead us to question some parts of Feynman’s argument?

Finally, Sociology goes on the counter-attack with Robert K Merton’s work on the Sociology of Science. Merton was the first thinker to apply Sociology to science and to understand Science as a Sociological phenomena.

Is this consistent with the work of Kuhn and Popper? Does it provide a different way of demarcating scientific activity? If it does, how does Sociology itself stand up against Merton’s norms?