Is Sociology a legitimate science?

Is Sociology a legitimate science?

medicine can be used by an individual to treat disease
physics and computer science can be used by an individual to create devices that organize matter or information

sociology has been used by universities to get funding when the vast majority of problems encountered in both primitive and modern life are the result of people who had babies they couldn't provide for without heightened interaction with other people or tribes

name some societal accomplishments by someone who called themselves a sociologist

no

no

as much as is economics

More effective advertising, better political control.

You may not like them but they are real effects of sociology.

Criminal Justice as a sidebranch of sociology can, combined with statistics, be used to hem in anti-social behavior and establish control over the populace. Higher education can use similar methods to increase learning effectiveness.

No. I once dated a very nice young man who had a degree in Social Sciences and is a Social Scientist. He could not find work anywhere but at a Forever 21 location that was 2 hours away from his home. This was before I myself enrolled into a university to find out that Social Science is a major for lazy fucks who want to take as few classes as possible. The counselor even joked a out how many students changed their major to Social Sciences because they were failing all the classes in whatever major they had before

t. UCSB student

>More effective advertising, better political control.

you

>effects of sociology

fairly certain the people that implement those things don't call themselves sociologists

>you may not like them...effects

accomplishments are enjoyed, effects are just that

the science part of criminal justice is psychology, the rest is statistics

still no answer to

>name some societal accomplishments by someone who called themselves a sociologist

What is sociology? It's some mix of psychology, anthropology, statistics, ethnology, yet it has nothing of its own.

>I once dated a very nice young man
ok gramma

also, was it that Forever 21 at the El Tejon Outlets?

well, it has some useful uses. so yes.

i mean, thats what makes a science a science right?

Wait, so were you going to respond to their statements unironically? Or just embarrass yourself.

It was a Forever 21 in Fashion Island, Newport Beach CA. My nice young man lived in Oceanside, CA

name some societal accomplishments by biological determinists

I'm still waiting for the alcoholism vaccine

sociologist here
In its own field, yes. It's a social science, so don't expect it to have the same criteria than "natural" ones (which also don't gather into a single united epistemology). They're nonetheless mostly aligned with the same peer-review scheme (that isn't really what makes it "science" for me, however)

Though, don't ask me to defend this status of "science", because I don't even bother about it.
For me the important thing is to make another person deeply discover a world which one would not have investigated. I'm rather on qualitative than quantitative, in what I read the "science" question is a trust-ability one, how can I know that such or such researcher is telling me bullshit or isn't, does he or she gives me enough clues, does the world appear, etc.

Then in quantitative, besides relevance of hypothesis, the bias and political blind points (problem there being the "blind point" rather than "political"), you've got the question of the good usage of statistics. Generally people don't fool around too much with it.

what should I read before reading Mauss?

You can read him right now because he's really good.
The classic Durkheim and Weber are always a good idea, though you might prefer Weber when you didn't read anything first thing.
What are your interests?

is this a troll

I wanted to learn some Sociology and Anthropology, but I don't know where should I start (with Weber, Mauss, Levi-Strauss, etc). 'The Gift' seems to be interesting. Do you know any good intro text?

Go for The Gift if you feel you can, it's a very good one and is very important nowadays.

By Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, The Three Types of Legitimate Rule, The Objectivity of the Sociological and Social-Political Knowledge (this one is very interesting concerning epistemology of the social sciences)

I find Durkheim to be more "harsh" to read, but if you want a grasp on the different ways you're obliged to read him too. By him, Division of Labour in Society, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life are a little easier than Rules of the Sociological Method.

It's not a bad thing to read Durkheim and Weber before Lévi-Strauss, but you can all the same read Tristes Tropiques as of now, it's a classical. The Jealous Potter also. Race and History is easy to read, very accessible. The raw and the cooked, Anthropologie Structurale (I and II) may be harder, but it's up to you.

It's kind of hard for me to advise things out of the blue besides the classics which were taught me, I could be more of a good advice if you told me what kind of things interest you.

And I forgot the intro one : Invitation to Sociology, by Peter L. Berger. This is one of the first book they give you first year.

If you want more recent authors, Becker and Goffman are marvelous, you can also try Bourdieu (The Inheritors and The Reproduction, but it's a little harder than Goffman)