So, for many years geographers followed scientific methods, in order to shape geography into an academic subject, and recognised fully as a science. But has this been achieved?

The Penguin dictionary of geography defines science as “Knowledge gained by detailed observation by deduction of the laws governing changes and conditions and by testing these deductions by experiment.” (Clark 1998: 358) Whilst on the surface geography seems to fit this description, in truth this is merely the tip of the iceberg, it can be seen that there are elements pointing to geography being a science, but also elements pointing to the opposite viewpoint. This essay will include a multitude of sources relating to this subject, highlighting the indicators that geography is in fact a science, and also a variety of counterarguments to this point. However it is clear that due to the on going nature of the argument it is clear that there will be no definite answers provided, merely guides to what may be, and as such this answer can probably never be fully concluded.

Throughout history geographers have strived to have geography recognised as a science, as this was deemed necessary for it to be accepted in the eyes of academics worldwide. This tradition has carried on into modern day society, with geographers indicating that the subject is indeed a science. As we can see there have been many academic journals and books written about geography, and this status alone help to prove that geography is in fact a science. On the other hand other subjects that are widely regarded as sciences (such as chemistry, biology and physics) may contest this, and would argue that many of its scientific qualities are in fact taken from them, for example geography is strongly linked with biology in many areas. However this may further help to show geography’s scientific nature, as ideas are taken and used from other sciences, meaning that it to must be a science if it has taken from other scientific subjects.

Every self proclaimed geographer today will be able to tell you that he or she has something to do with data collection, and this can be a major indicator towards whether geography is indeed a science or not. For the most part physical geographers are involved with data collection of a Quantative nature, for example beach sediment samples or the measurement of rainfall in different areas. This on its own suggests that geography is a science, as this fulfils the “detailed observation” and “testing deductions by experiment” parts of the science definition (Clark 1998: 358). Also the data gathered is empirical, which is strong indicator of a scientific subject. However Geography also incorporates human elements, which traditionally use Qualitative data. As qualitative data is not numerical many people would not believe it to be scientific, hence showing that there are areas of geography which not everybody would call scientific. Even still all data collection in all forms can be seen to be scientific, as long as the ‘science’ is not only interested in empirical data, this therefore is another indicator that geography is indeed a science. However if data collection is all that is required for a subject to be scientific then there is little to stop any other subject being considered a science, as most areas of interest.

If the scientific values of geography differ then how can it be possible to ever gain a clear analysis of whether geography is a science? Two quotes from Castree’s questioning geography give a good insight into this; firstly “the answer depends entirely on whether one operates with an empirical definition of science” (2004; 70). This highlights the importance of definition, and that how the question is phrased will greatly affect the answer given, and with an open question like this there can be no set answer, as whatever conclusion given may be true, but the opposite of this point may be equally true.  His other point is that “Science is what people who call themselves scientists actually say and do” (2004; 70). Generally in public view geographers are viewed as scientists, so from this standing we can argue that geography is a science, however other scientists from other disciplines may believe geography is not a science, so we are presented with the problem with who to believe.

So far we may of in effect deduced that only some elements of geography are science, however even the parts we believe to be ‘scientific’ may not In fact be. Chalmers states, “Does the ability of such facts solve our problem about the factual basis for science?” (2004; 27). Here we are told that even though a empirical force may exist, the assumption that the subject is a science should not be made, i.e just because some elements of geography are empirical this does not mean that some parts of geography are scientific. Therefore we once again move further from drawing upon solid evidence that geography is in fact a science.

At this point it is time to move away from looking at the 100% reliable sources that geography is a science, as it has been established that there is not any basis that we can definitely say that geography is a science due to its varying nature, and the different definitions a science that can be given. Within Chalmers book, Feyerabends theory of science is quoted, “There is no scientific method, then. Scientists should follow their subjective wishes. Anything goes.” (2004; 157) If one was to take this viewpoint then it is clear that for the most part geography most definitely I a science as most geographers wish it to be a science, but at the same time it is not a science as there is no true scientific establishment for anything.

In todays society many of the more ‘traditional’ subjects, such as physics, chemistry and geography are viewed as sciences, where newer subjects such as media studies are not (although this is not saying they are in any way less important). This is a very established viewpoint , and indeed Is reflected by a physical geography course being labelled a BSc, and gives a strong indication of at least the physical side of geography being thought of (and therefore by some definitions) a science.

The facts so far show Physical geography as a science and human geography as not a science. If this is true how do we determine to how much value to we put on each factor to decide overall which takes priority and therefore if geography is indeed a science, or if it is not, with only some parts being scientific, but not enough to constitute the whole subject being denoted as a science. Taking a view that scientific subject one which evolves the collection of data it is feasible to state that geography is a science due to large amounts of data collection involved, however as much of it is not empirical then we can see flaws in this.

In conclusion we can see that there can be no definite decision as to whether Geography is a science, as it depends entirely how geography defined, and how science is defined. However, it can be seen that no matter how the question is angled, at least some of the field of geography can be considered to be scientific, as by its very nature geography must involve data collection and analysis, as if this was not the case how could we analyse the world around us. Therefore we can tentatively conclude that geography is a science, although some scientists may argue that it is a not a complete science and that no claim as to that it is can be made, consequently we will never be one hundred percent sure as to whether geography is indeed a science, but can only make assumptions based upon the facts we have.