Breaking down the question
The verb here is is — the question demands a verdict, and the phrase give reasons signals that the marks lie in justification, not assertion. A good answer resists the temptation to say a flat yes or no. It defines science by its method, tests sociology against that definition, presents the case for and against, and settles on a reasoned position.
The underlying debate is naturalism versus anti-naturalism — whether the discipline that studies meaningful human action can proceed like physics. In ten marks you must stage both sides economically and reach a qualified judgement.
How to approach it
Open by defining science through its procedure rather than its subject matter: empiricism, systematic observation, hypothesis-testing, generalisation and objectivity. This framing lets you ask whether the procedure transfers to society.
Then move quickly through the affirmative — Comte and Durkheim — and the critique — Weber. Note the practical obstacles: experiment, prediction, value neutrality. Close with a qualified yes. For the wider treatment, draw on sociology as a science.
Model answer
Science is best defined not by what it studies but by how. It is a systematic body of knowledge built through empirical observation, the testing of hypotheses against evidence, and cautious generalisation towards laws. Its hallmarks are empiricism, controlled observation, objectivity and verifiability. On this definition, any discipline using these procedures has a claim to being scientific.
The positivist tradition answers yes emphatically. Auguste Comte, who coined the term sociology, placed it atop the hierarchy of sciences and held that social laws could be discovered as natural laws had been. Emile Durkheim gave the programme rigour: in The Rules of Sociological Method he insisted that social facts be treated as things — external and constraining — and his study of suicide correlated rates with social integration using official statistics, showing that even a private act follows social regularities.
Anti-naturalists demur. Max Weber argued that social action is oriented by the subjective meanings actors attach to it, so the sociologist must practise Verstehen — interpretive understanding — alongside causal explanation. A falling stone has no view of its fall; a voter does. Meanings have no analogue in the natural world. Practical difficulties reinforce the doubt: controlled experiment is rarely possible, prediction is undermined by human reflexivity, and full objectivity is elusive because the observer belongs to the society studied.
The honest verdict is a qualified yes. Sociology adopts the ethos of science — evidence, systematic method, openness to test — even where it cannot copy the techniques of the laboratory. It is a science of a distinctive kind: a human science that combines explanation with understanding.
Examiner's perspective
Examiners reward structure and a defined position. Scripts that plunge into positivism without first defining science forfeit easy marks. The strongest answers stage the naturalism debate with the right thinkers — Comte and Durkheim for the affirmative, Weber for the critique — and anchor them in Suicide and Verstehen.
Weaker answers declare sociology either fully scientific or not at all. The top band goes to a qualified judgement, supported by genuine reasons and precise vocabulary — empiricism, positivism, objectivity, verstehen — rather than sweeping assertion.