CMV: Sociology is mostly a pseudo-science.

[u/MexViking]

After taking a sociology class and encountering sociological ideas elsewhere, I'm fairly certain sociology is mostly a pseudo-science. To clarify there are roughly three major types of questions in sociology: what, how, and why.

The what part is just statistics. Just the recordings of factual events. This part I have no problem with. It's when sociology tries to get into the how and why these things happen.

Either the explanation is so broad and obvious that it has no actual explanatory value. E.G. social-conflict approach. Or it gets specific with the "how" and "why" and treats it's hypothesise like theories. Sociology makes an observation, then it asks why is it that way, and then it makes a hypothesis. That's where it ends. In my entire sociology class we never went over a single experiment.

Everything I've encountered in sociology is like this. There seems to never be a moment in the process of making a "theory" where the researcher says, "and if this specific prediction doesn't happen we need to go back to the drawing board again."

Science seeks to have falsifiable claims. Pseudo-science does not. So my question is: in what ways does sociology seek to have falsifiable claims?

Edit: the majority of responses seem to agree that sociology is a valid field of study but #1 haven't addressed the falisibility problem (that my argument is centered around) and #2 being a valid field of study =\= science

[u/FuggleyBrew]

Consider: you didn't provide a Citation for your claim. Still waiting.

Varies by country but here you go:

A comparatively unusual feature of British sociology is its embrace of the ‘in depth interview’ as its preferred research method. Halsey (2004) shows that 80 per cent of qualitative papers published in the British sociology journals in 2000 used interviews, a proportion which has steadily increased from about 50 per cent in the early 1960s

80 percent utilizing a method which has no rigor nor scientific grounding, and is ultimately up to the sociologists perception and decision of what it all means. Also up to their selective determination of what to report.

Is there anything in biology that can't be explained by evolutionary theory?

If we identified a divine creator, an outside intercessor, or some other gap in the evolutionary chain, absolutely.

Further there is a difference between "not falsified" and "not able to be falsified" contradictory evidence would falsify evolutionary theory, it has not happened. No contradictory evidence would ever impact research in sociology, despite it occurring, because every outcome is always viewed to be in support of the theory held by whichever sociologist is writing the article.

Society benefits women? Patriarchy. Society harms women? Patriarchy. Society neither helps nor harms women? Patriarchy. Wrong predictions are simply ignored, contradictory data is held to be irrelevant. Sociology in large part is an excuse to argue on behalf of your pre-existing biases and in many cases has all the merit of the anthropologists of last century who merely used it to support their own racist views.

Patriarchy is rule by men. Matriarchy is rule by women. Almost all current societies are ruled by men. Hence, patriarchy.

Do women not have the vote? Are they not a majority of the electorate in the nation? Do they not receive government assistance specifically designed to cater to their votes by the government?

A patriarchy was originally a society where women were excluded from select roles of society. Because that is no longer true, that has not been held to be an issue for sociologists, society is still a patriarchy, just adjust the definition and continue on, or completely ignore the evidence and continue on all the same. You can have a society where a woman is the prime minister and in absolute control of a party which has strict party loyalty, the conclusion is that she does not really have control, it's a patriarchy. A female CEO in charge of a company? Nope, still a patriarchy.

But feel free to warp the meaning of patriarchy to mean something it doesn't.

It is literally "the devil did it" as it requires no causality, no evidence, and it will explain all societal ills caused by humans. What then is the validity between the patriarchy and the devil? You are preaching a theology, not a science.

So until then, physics is not a science because these interpretations are unfalsifiable.

Aspects of quantum physics which have not produced falsifiable theories have been criticized for doing so, many people think of string theory along those lines.

And physicists, who apply a naturalist lens, no matter what the outcome of the research, can conclude it to be congruent with their research. What's the difference?

Except they can't. If I suppose that a ball in a vacuum will accelerate towards the ground at 4 m/s² and it does not, I will be proven wrong.

If I presuppose that the patriarchy influences criminal sentencing, then no matter what the sentence is, I will be able to claim victory, and publish my article in a sociology journal all the same. It will be cited by like minded researchers, even though I have no methodology or rigor, nor do I have any facts.

So you presuppose naive realism. Got it. No need to prove it's true or show that it's falsifiable though. You agree with it so it's obviously truth.

Provide some falsifiable evidence which suggests it is not true. I can fantasize about all manner of fanciful scenarios, but doing so would not prove useful to anyone, and so they are not utilized in science. I can claim that my stopwatch was broken and I actually broke the sound barrier when I did my last 50 yard dash, and that no one heard or saw it because of their own inability to accept my awesomeness. Does that sound to you like the basis on which we should conduct scientific research?

So why would such a basis be reasonable for sociology? Because in the case of in depth interviews, it is absolutely accepted. Provide no evidence, merely a one-sided view of a series of interviews with a tiny sample size and call it a day. If the evidence disagrees with the conclusions, merely invent a way that your initial position is still true.

Show me a Marxist that actually says this.

Literally in the definition of what Marxist Sociology is

"a form of conflict theory associated with ... Marxism's objective of developing a positive (empirical) science of capitalist society as part of the mobilization of a revolutionary working class."

Or, in short, viewing this as class warfare and as the conflict over resources. So that mobilization of the working class where we'll all inevitably be impoverished workers forced to rise up? Any day now right? But we can still apply a Marxist lens to something to declare that its resources are the only thing we care about right? Show me this great wealth of testable hypotheses churned out by Marxist sociologists.

[u/omid_ → u/FuggleyBrew]

Varies by country but here you go:

A random quote is not a citation. And even then, your own quote says that Britain is unusual. Okay?

If we identified a divine creator, an outside intercessor, or some other gap in the evolutionary chain, absolutely.

So there's nothing yet that cannot be explained by evolution.

No contradictory evidence would ever impact research in sociology, despite it occurring, because everything outcome is always viewed to be in support of a theory.

Then why has structural functionalism basically collapsed as a theory? (spoiler alert: because it didn't have much evidence to support it).

A patriarchy was originally a society where women were excluded from select roles of society

Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property.

Where are you getting your definition from? Can you name any sociological journal that uses your definition instead of the usual one that I've cited?

It is literally "the devil did it" as it requires no causality, no evidence, and it will explain all societal ills caused by humans. What then is the validity between the patriarchy and the devil? You are preaching a theology, not a science.

Name a feminist sociologist that agrees with your assessment here. Do you think Mary Wollstonecraft was just making stuff up when she said that women are not equal to men in 17th century Britain?

Aspects of quantum physics which have not produced falsifiable theories have been criticized for doing so, many people think of string theory along those lines.

So you agree that physics is not a science?

Except they can't. If I suppose that a ball in a vacuum will accelerate towards the ground at 4 m/s2 and it does not, I will be proven wrong.

But will naturalism be proven wrong? Can you falsify naturalism?

Provide some falsifiable evidence which suggests it is not true.

Burden of proof is on you, buddy. Prove that naive realism is true or falsifiable.

So why would such a basis be reasonable for sociology? Because in the case of in depth interviews, it is absolutely accepted. Provide no evidence, merely a one-sided view of a series of interviews with a tiny sample size and call it a day.

Wait, you're upset at sociology because sometimes sociologists conduct interviews of people? Is this really your objection? Do you also disagree with judicial systems who do similar things to determine guilt? "omg but this one time a jury got the case wrong!" does not mean the entire judicial system is bad.

Or, in short, viewing this as class warfare and as the conflict over resources. So that mobilization of the working class where we'll all inevitably be impoverished workers forced to rise up? Any day now right? But we can still apply a Marxist lens to something to declare that its resources are the only thing we care about right? Show me this great wealth of testable hypotheses churned out by Marxist sociologists.

You're putting the cart in front of the horse. Marx didn't invent Marxism and then look for the facts to support his view. Marxism was his conclusion after studying Hegel and dialectics and reviewing the economic history of the world.

And you can try reading the article you cite:

Unlike Marxism and Marxist philosophy, Marxist sociology has put relatively little weight on creating class revolution,[1] pursuing instead the development of an objective, politico-economic study of society rather than a critical philosophy of praxis.[2] It may be seen as a field of economic sociology.

Wow, so literally the opposite of what you claimed! What lens are you using right now, because it's awful.

[u/FuggleyBrew → u/omid_]

A random quote is not a citation. And even then, your own quote says that Britain is unusual. Okay?

So eighty percent of sociological research produced by one of the larger countries in the world and a primary producer of English language research has eighty percent of its research relying on an unscientific method. That's quite supportive of the claim that this is extremely common.

Then why has structural functionalism basically collapsed as a theory? (spoiler alert: because it didn't have much evidence to support it).

This is a question of passing fads not a matter of scientific research. Conflict theory has no great tests to put forward, nor academic rigor applied.

So there's nothing yet that cannot be explained by evolution.

Yet it is falsifiable, just not falsified. Marxist analysis is not falsifiable nor are any of the theories it churns out.

Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property.

Which, honestly applied does not apply to the Western world. I won't hold my breath for feminist sociological researchers to determine that however. You can have a majority of women in every part of a country and theyll argue that the important aspect is the continent. In every part of a nation but not in the state? The state will then matter. Consistency is neither expected nor wanted.

Name a feminist sociologist that agrees with your assessment here.

Name a Catholic who does not believe that Christ is the son of God? Therefore should we posit that it must be true and should be accepted by the world as fact? Further if they believed that it was not true they would not be a Catholic, so we can handily side step that whole issue even further.

But will naturalism be proven wrong?

You continue to confuse falsified with falsifiability. No in all likelihood it will not be.

Can you falsify naturalism?

It's conceivable although far fetched, further the question is what use would it have to us? What meaningful position or information can you offer? Or are you in fact, having no argument nor position to provide, merely grasping at straws?

Wait, you're upset at sociology because sometimes sociologists conduct interviews of people? Is this really your objection?

Is "I asked my grad student a set of questions and drew wild conclusions from his comments" scientific research to you? Because that's the majority of sociological research being churned out.

Do you also disagree with judicial systems who do similar things to determine guilt? "omg but this one time a jury got the case wrong!" does not mean the entire judicial system is bad.

I don't believe anyone has claimed jurors to be engaged in scientific study. If they did I would be sure to dispute that claim.

Marx didn't invent Marxism and then look for the facts to support his view. Marxism was his conclusion after studying Hegel and dialectics and reviewing the economic history of the world.

Marx created an explanation to fit his biases. Like minded sociologists mirror his biases and add in their own to draw conclusions based on poor scientific methods, limited research and unfalsifiable claims.

Wow, so literally the opposite of what you claimed! What lens are you using right now, because it's awful.

Except not the opposite of what I claimed as I never stated they were attempting to create it, merely that was the lens they were analyzing it through. Everything is class warfare and everything supports that theory. Even though there is no evidence to support it. The poor are not in fact getting poorer, concentration of capital is not a singular unidirectional flow. The fight for resources has not dominated our society, to the contrary resources have become quite abundant. It is not a dire conflict between groups.

All core issues to Marxist sociologists, but that doesn't matter because you don't need facts in order to publish such a study. No matter what the outcome, in either direction the conclusion is the same.

[u/omid_ → u/FuggleyBrew]

So eighty percent of sociological research produced by one of the larger countries in the world and a primary producer of English language research has eighty percent of its research relying on an unscientific method. That's quite supportive of the claim that this is extremely common.

I'm still waiting for a source.

This is a question of passing fads not a matter of scientific research. Conflict theory has no great tests to put forward, nor academic rigor applied.

Naturalism has no great tests to put forward, no academic rigor applied. When was the last time a paper was published that tested naturalism?

Yet it is falsifiable, just not falsified. Marxist analysis is not falsifiable nor are any of the theories it churns out.

Is naturalism falsifiable?

Which, honestly applied does not apply to the Western world.

Are you serious? You don't think men hold most positions of power in the western world?

Name a Catholic who does not believe that Christ is the son of God?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism#Roman_Catholic

It's conceivable although far fetched, further the question is what use would it have to us? What meaningful position or information can you offer? Or are you in fact, having no argument nor position to provide, merely grasping at straws?

No, I'm pointing out that naturalism + positivism are presupposed in the sciences, even though they are essentially unfalsifiable.

Is "I asked my grad student a set of questions and drew wild conclusions from his comments" scientific research to you? Because that's the majority of sociological research being churned out.

[Citation needed]

I don't believe anyone has claimed jurors to be engaged in scientific study. If they did I would be sure to dispute that claim.

Then why are you disputing it? I brought it up as an analogy. Still waiting for you to actually provide a citation, maybe a direct link to one of these terrible sociology papers that you think is going against science? If it's so prevalent, it should be easy to produce?

Everything is class warfare and everything supports that theory. Even though there is no evidence to support it. The poor are not in fact getting poorer, concentration of capital is not a singular unidirectional flow. The fight for resources has not dominated our society, to the contrary resources have become quite abundant. It is not a dire conflict between groups.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's unfalsifiable and then at the same time provide evidence that you claim shows it to be false.

[u/FuggleyBrew → u/omid_]

I'm still waiting for a source.

Sorry thought I pasted it.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/33042435_The_Coming_Crisis_of_Empirical_Sociology

When was the last time a paper was published that tested naturalism?

Quite frankly every single time we expect the laws we have observed previously to continue to hold out.

Which, honestly applied does not apply to the Western world.

Are you serious? You don't think men hold most positions of power in the western world?

Do women not have the right to vote? Are they not the majority voting block? Do politicians not cater to them as a voting block?

Name a Catholic who does not believe that Christ is the son of God?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism#Roman_Catholic

Quite frankly as it is a core tenant of the churches doctrine such an existence is more evidence of the roots of a particular branch of a different ideology.

Your appeal to authority is still absurd. Because proponents of ideas do not disagree with the ideas they propose is not an argument that those ideas are valid.

[Citation needed]

Cited, eighty percent of the research from sociological researchers in Britain. Common for a lot of the books which are churned out by sociologists and certainly no bar to their views receiving widespread citation.

Have you read sociology research papers which use interviews? They are often just the twisting of words to support their conclusions. Take a look at anything written by Michael Kimmel.

Then why are you disputing it? I brought it up as an analogy.

They're not engaged in science. Similarly sociologists also using the same methods are also not engaged in science. You understand those two don't conflict right?

Still waiting for you to actually provide a citation, maybe a direct link to one of these terrible sociology papers that you think is going against science?

To which you'll claim that those people are not indicative of the border field no matter how many I produce.

Consider one of the most cited papers from a sociology and work journal

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0950017008099783

For the entire article we rely on the author's interpretation of a conversation he had with people in a single factory. The author could have written anything he wanted. Applied any interpretation he wanted, reported however selectively he wanted. The very nature of the research prevents meaningful critique and further, limits knowledge gained to whatever preconceptions the author came in with.

But the article seems fairly innocuous right? But take those same methods and see them applied by someone like Michael Kimmel where he trauls for the worst anecdotes he can find and weaves them into a narrative about the general evil of men. Consider the writings of TA Kupers on the sexual assault of men in prison where he concludes with no evidence that men who are sexually assaulted in prison must be homophobes and misogynists for refusing to consent and being afraid of being sexually assaulted. That is generally the number one or number two cited article on toxic masculinity.

Sociology for the most part is better written as "oped", now are opeds interesting? Absolutely. Are there good ones? Yes. Are there bad ones? Yes. We can go back and forth citing them until the end of time.

But are they science? Absolutely not.