Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Sociology: an Evil "Science"”

« Déjà Vu About Vujà Dé | Main | More Obamunism: Who Controls the Newspapers Controls the Present »

March 23, 2009

Sociology: an Evil "Science"

Hatched by Dave Ross

I’ve returned to the university as an online student after a 33-year absence from academia. One of the courses that I must take in order to obtain a communications degree is sociology, an evil discipline if ever there was one. Sociology is less of a “science" than a cult, or even a belief system that has underlying assumptions, such as the assumption that “the system,” particularly the capitalist variety, is inherently unfair, and that our society is replete with victims who are being treated unfairly, i.e. various racial groups, feminism etc. It is, after all the “discipline” that Ward Churchill, the fake Indian, teaches.

A friend of mine, a college professor who will remain nameless, gave me this insight into sociology: “Sociology is not really a very well-organized science. It doesn’t have good research protocols, and it is a haven for people’s 'issues,' which they try to 'prove' by using dubious methods.” She noted how at her college, an interdisciplinary team worked to create a freshman education program. “Quickly, it became clear that while English and History had similar ideas and worked similarly, the Sociology group didn’t write, test, research, or approach education anything like English or History.”

I can attest to sociology not having any kind of a backing in simple, grammatical English.

Take a look at a question from a quiz that I took recently. This is after the quiz was graded. It was a multiple choice quiz and the answer that I chose was the correct answer. I aced the test, by the way:

Volunteers who seek out roles that differ from the ones they play in the paid labor force is referred to as:

Question 10 answers

Selected Answer: Correct contrast hypothesis.

Correct Answer: Correct contrast hypothesis.

I won’t bother to parse this sentence, except to point out that it has two basic grammar errors.

One can read through the sociology textbook, as I am doing, and think that one is reading a position paper by the Democratic Party. While I’m certainly willing to concede that one can be a sociologist without being a raging liberal, or even a radical socialist (I mean, all you have to do is just switch a couple of letters in the name, right?), the discipline, or at least the bit that I’m reading, seems to presume a lot of things that are part of the liberal doxology; except that unlike the Christian doxology, this one is in praise of political correctness.

For instance, there’s a section about the “shrinking” middle class -- the presumption being that this is a fact, rather than a position that liberals like to take in order to justify class warfare. In fact, the book opens with an excerpt from Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America, which is about how it’s impossible to get by if you earn the minimum wage.

Now look at this paragraph from my textbook and note the moral relativistic tone that it takes about pedophilia:

What does constitute sexual deviance, then? The answer to this question seems to change with each generation. Today, U.S. laws allow married women to accuse their husbands of rape, when a generation ago such an offense was not recognized. Similarly, pedophilia -- an adult having sex with a minor -- is generally regarded with disgust today, even when it is consensual. Yet in many countries, fringe groups now speak positively of “intergenerational sex,” arguing that “childhood” is not a biological given (Hendershott 2002).
Though this and some other aspects of sexual expression are still against the law, the meaning of the labels is beginning to blur.

Yikes! I can easily imagine finding a paragraph that could take an equally non-judgmental tone about consensual cannibalism!

Now, I can see some value to some of the things that sociology studies: how groups interact, whether society’s rules work or are in need of fixing, how we define define deviance and control people. But it is also obviously one of the mushiest courses imaginable; and rather than being a discipline, it is a lack of discipline, being a tent so big that you can’t see its walls!

Hatched by Dave Ross on this day, March 23, 2009, at the time of 11:05 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3547

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Da Coyote

Why are you pursuing a degree on "communications"? IMHO, this degree is right down there competing with "education" for the most worthless collection of nonsense in existence. You're far too good of a writer and thinker. Thankfully, you perhaps may be able to help the sorry souls who teach and take such drivel...by introducing actual scholarship to the profession.

Oh, tune into KHOW (via the net) during the afternoons starting at 3 pm MDT and listen to the Churchill trial. This guy is a loon of Obama-esque proportions.

The above hissed in response by: Da Coyote at March 24, 2009 6:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: Da Coyote

Oh, tune into KHOW (via the net) during the afternoons starting at 3 pm MDT and listen to the Churchill trial. This guy is a loon even beyond Obama-esque proportions.

The above hissed in response by: Da Coyote at March 24, 2009 6:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: Ken Hahn

sociology is a science in the same same sense that astrology is. The observations are factual, the framework is gibberish. Like a degree in social work or one of the tribal studies ( black, women's etc. ) a degree in sociology is an iron ass effort. You can get it if you can sit through enough meaningless noise and parrot it back.

The above hissed in response by: Ken Hahn at March 24, 2009 9:35 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dave-

Sociology was the most forgettable course I took in college lo those many years ago. (It was a few more than 33.) If there was a more forgettable course than sociology, I don’t remember it.

My dim recollection is that it was about a kind of group psychology that seemed to be backed by absolutely no scientific research or analysis.

Back in that era the concept of political correctness had not yet entered the vernacular, but it was painfully obvious, even to an 18-year-old, that sociology was steeped in total, unapologetic liberalism.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E at March 24, 2009 4:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: john.cunningham

Somewhere on the net recently I read something along these lines--
Every sociology book and course can be easily summed up this way:
1. Poverty exists
2. America sucks

The above hissed in response by: john.cunningham at March 25, 2009 7:56 AM

The following hissed in response by: Jewel Atkins

Tonight, my daughter, in her second year at art school, was talking about her least favorite class - sociology. She was forced to watch a movie called "500 years later" which 'proved' that all whites are racists, and only whites can be racists. As we discussed the issue of being white therefore we are racists, the first thought that came to her was to feel bad for all the evil things white people did. I reminded her that they aren't telling her the facts, and she should take a guilt-free approach to being a blue-eyed devil:

State unequivocally that she is a racist, blue-eyed devil, and she has no sympathies for loser races who whine and bitch about their oppressed lot in life, because it isn't about race, it's about mindset and tribe affiliation. She didn't wish to belong to a handwringing snivveling race of breast beating crybabies, because there was nothing she could do about the past, so the **** what. Grow the hell up and move out of Zimbabwe and let the natives try their hand at civilization. They're too ******* stupid to internalize knowledge, then let them be brutalized by their own corrupt leaders and leanings. As for her, she's going to survive and laugh at them.

I don't know if she is going to take this advice, but it felt good saying all that, anyway.

[Please be careful with the language; this is a family blog, believe it or not! Thanks, the Mgt.]

The above hissed in response by: Jewel Atkins at March 30, 2009 6:17 PM