Why is sociology such a touchy-feely, wishy washy field fully of SJWs these days and not a true science?
Back in the day there were several attempts to develop a positivistic social science (Weber, Comte, Durkheim).
There's no a priori reason that a scientific approach to social questions should be ruled out.
Other urls found in this thread:
marxists.org
twitter.com
It is not the professors, it is the students. Put yourself in their flesh:
> Say something about criminal justice/race/sex
> Hordes of SJWs storm the President's office complaining
> Lose your job
Yep, it is much better to just surrender. However, if you have the support of the college administration you can still make it. Search about the University of Chicago, they have said no to safe spaces.
I fucking hate all who study sociology. Always so strong opinioned and political and punchable.
>There's no a priori reason that a scientific approach to social questions should be ruled out.
wew lad.
Critical theory. It gave people with no understanding of the scientific method a way to feel smart and use big words (many of which are literally made up). It has ruined so much of the social sciences, and it distracts from efforts to understand society that would actually yield genuine insight and application.
Literally just complaining about muh dialouges and muh discourse.
I don't know what it is about sociology that made it succumb to critical bullshit. Perhaps it was a lack of adequate models or research methods. I'm just glad my field hasn't given in to it.
>Critical theory
Its interesting to read tho
You are just butthurt that people don't share your silly views.
Because it's really fucking difficult. Creating models that predict and model reality in Physics is fucking child's play in comparison to making accurate models for Sociology. So instead they just don't even try.
>There's no a priori reason that a scientific approach to social questions should be ruled out.
This is putting it mildly. I'd say that a scientific approach to the social sciences is the only productive one.
>I don't know what it is about sociology that made it succumb to critical bullshit
Oftentimes an audience interprets you more by what you align sharply against than on a thousand pages of your writing. Critical theory was largely a disillusioned reaction to Marxism which sought to salvage any working theories of "social justice" by stabbing the very heart of dialectics and historical materialism. Of course, this "disillusionment" was itself an artifact of theoretical weakness. It's a story of those utopians who stubbornly ignored the global nature of capitalism for Stalin's "socialism in one country," among many other things, because they simply -preferred- to see "progress" and a viable theory -- only to scream bloody murder and tear away any remaining pretense of these philosophical foundations when they so drastically mispredicted history, rather than confront their own theoretical weaknesses and utopian blinders.
Benjamin's critique, marxists.org
Of course, the bourgeois and its client states have much to gain in advancing a conspicuously heterodox "Marxism" that has ceased to be Marxist in any substantial sense.
Because historical materialism is a basic postulate if we are to have consistently predictive models in social science, suppression of Marxist ideas inherently requires sections of academia be nearly useless, stacked, and inertial. This isn't a particularly stable equilibrium. In fact, the modern SJW blight can be largely explained in terms of these contradictions.
Cont.
You'd certainly expect to see the ever more vicious and rabid attempts at self-justification we've observed. Privilege theory, especially, in assigning almost every malaise the label "oppression" and blaming an amorphous, nondescript, world of systematic injustice it has set up to be interchangeable with "the way things are right now" of any hypothetical instant, seeks to convince people of its necessity through an imaginary world and over its abject failures to cause actual improvements or so much as make testable predictions in the real one. It cannot abide challenge from within or without, because this perturbs the equilibrium that it feeds on
Stacked and useless cliques are inertial and insular, then, from a position of self-interest of individual members. Lysenkoism comes to mind, as do many other types of woo.
Weber, Durkheim and Comte did not actually produce any positivistic science (in field of sociology) either. They just theorised socilogy to be such -and if I remember correctly, Weber wasn't really crazy about sociology being a positivist/naturalist science-.
>I don't know what it is about sociology that made it succumb to critical bullshit
lack of math
lol, Marxism doesn't need anyone to "suppress" it. As a political philosophy it failed a long time ago. It's not even used as a justification for repressive regimes anymore. Its only remaining adherents are edgy undergrad sociology majors like yourself.
To be fair due to the inherent ever changing nature of human societies the social sciences was always going to lack significant rigor.
I'd argue in some ways it was never a true science to begin with and just simply piggybacked on the established models by more rigorous fields.
There is actually, it's just a very small portion. Look into Survey Methodology, basically the best and most scientific approach there is to sociological subjects. No bullshit, just math and logic, empirical research. I am currently doing a masters degree in survey statistics after I got a bachelor in sociology.
AMA
Do they teach you serious maths
Yeah. It's actually just like a normal statistics major, just with more applied data analysis (with R, SAS etc.) and some stuff on survey methodology, like sampling methods etc. We usually share our math classes with math majors.
Cause they learned what they needed to know, and hide it from the public.
Aka: the Stanford prison experiment, the Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures, and so on.
Think about it for a second, we're literally teleporting information, seeing and manipulating individual atoms, launching satellites in space that can read headlines... and you think we don't know what makes people tick?
'They' know exactly what is needed to know to manufacture consent from the public et al.
The whole SJW is a misinformation campaign, a red herring so to speak, to keep up-and-comers distracted with pointless, senseless garbage.
They discovered the truth, then when the public started to catch on, they erected a wall of 'ethics' to hide the truth and stop normies from actually documenting how easily it is to control people.
Thus the rise of the Frankfurt school.
What you're talking about isn't exactly secret; they just call it marketing research now.
"Public Relations" rather
See Psywar and Century of the Self documentaries on Youtube.
I believe is the oposite sociology is useless because it does not contribute at all, it just takes from other disciplines and call it their own.
I directly blame sociology for the current despise of humanities in general, while other, more usefull subjects of study like psychology and art (actual in-deep understanding of a single artistic discipline is hard a takes years to develop, not that "liberal arts" bullshit) are actively trying to solve questions that the formal sciences can't.
Then sociology happened and everyone thinks humanities is pointing at humans and passing judgement on their behavior because I read it in a book instead of trying to understand and explain something directly related to humans.
>the Stanford prison experiment, the Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures, and so on.
so u be sayin da joooos are basing their plans for world domination on the results of two experiments that have never been repeated?
this shit is deep yo
>8384495
if evrything you say can relate up to something positive, it shouldnt be deemed wrong
i think science understands society perfectly.. society doesnt understand society. some people dont even know their own gender, soon people will begin to question their own race
>There's no a priori reason that a scientific approach to social questions should be ruled out.
The problem is that women and low IQ individuals make up a very high proportion of people in the field.
Intelligent men avoid the field like the plague, thus it anguishes.
this pretty much
The only really smart sociologist I met so far also hated the subject itself and said he wouldn't do it again if he had the chance. His researsch is completely focused on survey methods. He even said he feels insulted when people call him a sociologist lol
Nobody's "trying" to ""suppress"" it. That's a mechanistic process Am I right in concluding you don't know the first thing about the actual theory? What components do you believe have "failed"? Do you mean this in terms of counterexamples or what?
Hurr if evolution's real why are there still monkeys
>comitee of 300
edgy
It seems that even those who are in the humanities hate sociology. I haven't got time to read into it but it looks shaky from start.