Is sociology a real science?

2ndcoming

I think some of you are being a bit hard on sociology here. It will never be a pure science a la chemistry etc because the parameters of the subject matter (ie humans) are constantly moving. A chemical reaction is provable precisely because the parameters are fixed.

I don't think it's about saying "people are this, we can prove it"; at its best it's about examining why certain groups behave in certain ways, why humanity exhibits certain behaviours, how we can learn from this to move society in a more peaceful and fruitful direction.

Also the post saying a field essentially founded by Marx has been taken over by leftists was a particular highlight :pac:. In a time where our current definitions of right / left have been so warped by America's hyper-simplified "culture wars" where right is everything individualist, libertarian and left is anything that even considers an interest in other people outside how to exploit them for personal gain, this is an unsurprising development.

i_surge

2ndcoming wrote: »

Also the post saying a field essentially founded by Marx has been taken over by leftists was a particular highlight :pac:. In a time where our current definitions of right / left have been so warped by America's hyper-simplified "culture wars" where right is everything individualist, libertarian and left is anything that even considers an interest in other people outside how to exploit them for personal gain, this is an unsurprising development.

I am as critical as anybody of those who shout marxism at everything but that doesn't mean sociology hasn't co-opted a lot of ideology at the expense of objectivity.

I have seen it first hand at a conference, oppression party groupthink, no usable research, pre determined research outcomes.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I wonder is this the same logic neoclassical economists use!

Economics is a social science, which also largely ignores empirical evidence.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

Economics is a social science, which also largely ignores empirical evidence.

If you laid all the world's economists end to end they wouldn't reach a conclusion.


It's very tiring to live in a world where Economics is based on honest actors. Corporate welfare, and the reality that the benefits of outright illegal activity by big business outweigh the possible fines or sanctions means most economic models are completely worthless.

In proper science if the model doesn't explain the evidence you have to ditch the model until you come up with one that can.



In engineering you just need something that will work reliably. So you work out the pump size based on the pressure drops. Then you add 50%. And choose the next size up pump.

Beancounters would only use the first step. And rely on engineers having over-engineered the pump. Which can work but only if other beancounters haven't already taken over the pump makers.

And this is why historical Boeing aircraft have a much better reputation than the current offerings.

COVID

Deleted User wrote: »

Economics is a social science, which also largely ignores empirical evidence.

Wasn't it Charles J. Haughey who referred to economics as the 'dismal science'.

Peregrinus

COVID wrote: »

Wasn't it Charles J. Haughey who referred to economics as the 'dismal science'.

Haughey may have used the term, but it was coined by Thomas Carlyle in 1849. He used the term in support of his argument that slavery should be reintroduced in the West Indies as a way of raising labour productivity. The conventional view of economists at the time (and since) was that people should be incentivised to work through the offer of wages rather than being compelled to work through enslavement; Carlyle didn't like this view, because it reduced the power of government and frustrated God's intention in creating black people, which was that they should work.

If Mr Haughey employed the term, no doubt he did so in support of some equally compelling argument.