3 ms·

Sociology is a big field, with a long history of bad ideas. For every sociologist, there's an equal and opposite sociologist. Let's just pick on one area, educ

by wisty 11y ago

Sociology is a big field, with a long history of bad ideas. For every sociologist, there's an equal and opposite sociologist. Let's just pick on one area, education. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28philosophy_of_education%29#Criticism_of_discovery-based_teaching_techniques https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28philosophy_o... > After a half century of advocacy associated with instruction using minimal guidance, there appears no body of research supporting the technique. In so far as there is any evidence from controlled studies, it almost uniformly supports direct, strong instructional guidance rather constructivist-based minimal guidance during the instruction of novice to intermediate learners. Even for students with considerable prior knowledge, strong guidance while learning is most often found to be equally effective as unguided approaches. Not only is unguided instruction normally less effective; there is also evidence that it may have negative results when student acquire misconceptions or incomplete or disorganized knowledge So .. the big "theory" in education is that "students learn better by teaching themselves". That's probably not untrue, for a bored upper-middle-class student who's ahead of the class (who do you think does a PhD in education?), but for most students it turns out to be a bad idea. But it feels good to say "Teach the students how to learn, not what to learn!". And if you can write hundreds of thousands of words on the topic, and give a feel-good summary to peers, what's stopping the idea from gaining traction?

dalke 11y ago
The assertion is that "social sciences are statistical and rigorous, too. The objects measured are fuzzier, not the science practiced." Your observation on constructivism is not in disagreement with that statement. For an example from medicine, which is also fuzzy, and quoting from http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/menopause/in-depth/hormone-therapy/ART-20046372 http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/menopause/in-d... : > Hormone replacement therapy — medications containing female hormones to replace the ones the body no longer makes after menopause — used to be a standard treatment for women with hot flashes and other menopause symptoms. Hormone therapy (as it's now called) was also thought to have the long-term benefits of preventing heart disease and possibly dementia. > Use of hormone therapy changed abruptly when a large clinical trial found that the treatment actually posed more health risks than benefits for one type of hormone therapy, particularly when given to older postmenopausal women. As the concern about health hazards attributed to hormone therapy grew, doctors became less likely to prescribe it. with http://www.webmd.com/menopause/features/hormone-replacement-therapy http://www.webmd.com/menopause/features/hormone-replacement-... saying "And now, a number of recent studies show that hormone replacement therapy may have protective benefits for women who are early in menopause." Another example might be ulcers, which a few decades ago were believed to be caused by diet and lifestyle, rather than H. pylori. A third might be the relatively recent work of Ioannidis titled "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False". You write "For every sociologist, there's an equal and opposite sociologist." On the topic of education, my understanding is that a large majority of sociologists believe that "socioeconomic status [is] a strong predictor of children’s educational and social outcomes" (quote from http://cepa.stanford.edu/iies2012 http://cepa.stanford.edu/iies2012 ). This view derives originally from the Coleman Report in the 1960s and hasn't appreciably changed over the decades. If your statement is correct, then there should be a large number of sociologists in education who believe that socioeconomic status is at best a weak predictor. Where are these sociologists?
- wisty 11y ago
  > If your statement is correct, then there should be a large number of sociologists in education who believe that socioeconomic status is at best a weak predictor. Where are these sociologists? You're talking about an observation, not a model or even a qualitative explanation. People have always known that the Sun "moves around" the Earth. That's an observation, and was never in dispute. The model has changed, though. Doctors have always known that ulcers exist. Their model of the cause changed in the light of new evidence. Did the Coleman Report do much to change the views of sociologists? I'm guessing they always knew that "rich kids do better at school". Do they think that's due to genetics, teacher behavior, better schools, parents reading to kids? Do they suggest the same interventions, to fix the inequality?
  - dalke 11y ago
    > You're talking about an observation, not a model or even a qualitative explanation. It's certainly a model, based on correlating many observations. The report is at http://www.scribd.com/doc/89990298/Coleman-Report-Equality-of-Educational-Opportunity-1966 http://www.scribd.com/doc/89990298/Coleman-Report-Equality-o... and the technical explanation at p571 looks very much like the model building I'm familiar with in drug design. Quoting from http://pages.jh.edu/~jhumag/0400web/18.html http://pages.jh.edu/~jhumag/0400web/18.html : > Using data from over 600,000 students and teachers across the country, the researchers found that academic achievement was less related to the quality of a student's school, and more related to the social composition of the school, the student's sense of control of his environment and future, the verbal skills of teachers, and the student's family background. That report (p. iv) deliberately did not suggest changes to social policy. However, it was used to guide changes. Quoting now from http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-ColemanReport.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-ColemanReport.html > First, it showed that variations in school quality (as indexed by the usual measures such as per pupil expenditure, size of school library, and so on) showed little association with levels of educational attainment, when students of comparable social backgrounds were compared across schools. (Differences in students' family backgrounds, by comparison, showed a substantial association with achievement.) Second, a student's educational attainment was not only related to his or her own family background, but also (less strongly) to the backgrounds of the other students in the school. These findings had clear implications for social engineering: opportunities could best be equalized via strategies of desegregation of schools (for example by busing). They challenged a major plank of Lyndon Johnson's vision for the Great Society; namely, that increased spending on education could rectify social deficits. To answer your question "Did the Coleman Report do much to change the views of sociologists" - yes. Your earlier statements suggested that you knew something about sociology and it's historical mistakes and developments. Your questions now, which are easily answered and are seemingly a standard part of sociology (Coleman's work is on the Wikipedia page for Sociology), suggest otherwise. Going back to my question, what is the equivalent in sociology to proposing that a perpetual motion machine can work? I gave an example - that a human culture can remain unchanged over 500,000 years. Are there sociologists who believe this to be true? Could I, though force of argument, convince a large number of sociologists that this is true? I believe that is the basis of your opposition. I do not believe so. There is neither biological nor archeological evidence to suggest this is the case. If you do not like that one, what is your equivalent?

by wisty 11y ago

dalke 11y ago

The assertion is that "social sciences are statistical and rigorous, too. The objects measured are fuzzier, not the science practiced." Your observation on constructivism is not in disagreement with that statement. For an example from medicine, which is also fuzzy, and quoting from http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/menopause/in-depth/hormone-therapy/ART-20046372 http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/menopause/in-d... : > Hormone replacement therapy — medications containing female hormones to replace the ones the body no longer makes after menopause — used to be a standard treatment for women with hot flashes and other menopause symptoms. Hormone therapy (as it's now called) was also thought to have the long-term benefits of preventing heart disease and possibly dementia. > Use of hormone therapy changed abruptly when a large clinical trial found that the treatment actually posed more health risks than benefits for one type of hormone therapy, particularly when given to older postmenopausal women. As the concern about health hazards attributed to hormone therapy grew, doctors became less likely to prescribe it. with http://www.webmd.com/menopause/features/hormone-replacement-therapy http://www.webmd.com/menopause/features/hormone-replacement-... saying "And now, a number of recent studies show that hormone replacement therapy may have protective benefits for women who are early in menopause." Another example might be ulcers, which a few decades ago were believed to be caused by diet and lifestyle, rather than H. pylori. A third might be the relatively recent work of Ioannidis titled "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False". You write "For every sociologist, there's an equal and opposite sociologist." On the topic of education, my understanding is that a large majority of sociologists believe that "socioeconomic status [is] a strong predictor of children’s educational and social outcomes" (quote from http://cepa.stanford.edu/iies2012 http://cepa.stanford.edu/iies2012 ). This view derives originally from the Coleman Report in the 1960s and hasn't appreciably changed over the decades. If your statement is correct, then there should be a large number of sociologists in education who believe that socioeconomic status is at best a weak predictor. Where are these sociologists?

wisty 11y ago
> If your statement is correct, then there should be a large number of sociologists in education who believe that socioeconomic status is at best a weak predictor. Where are these sociologists? You're talking about an observation, not a model or even a qualitative explanation. People have always known that the Sun "moves around" the Earth. That's an observation, and was never in dispute. The model has changed, though. Doctors have always known that ulcers exist. Their model of the cause changed in the light of new evidence. Did the Coleman Report do much to change the views of sociologists? I'm guessing they always knew that "rich kids do better at school". Do they think that's due to genetics, teacher behavior, better schools, parents reading to kids? Do they suggest the same interventions, to fix the inequality?
- dalke 11y ago
  > You're talking about an observation, not a model or even a qualitative explanation. It's certainly a model, based on correlating many observations. The report is at http://www.scribd.com/doc/89990298/Coleman-Report-Equality-of-Educational-Opportunity-1966 http://www.scribd.com/doc/89990298/Coleman-Report-Equality-o... and the technical explanation at p571 looks very much like the model building I'm familiar with in drug design. Quoting from http://pages.jh.edu/~jhumag/0400web/18.html http://pages.jh.edu/~jhumag/0400web/18.html : > Using data from over 600,000 students and teachers across the country, the researchers found that academic achievement was less related to the quality of a student's school, and more related to the social composition of the school, the student's sense of control of his environment and future, the verbal skills of teachers, and the student's family background. That report (p. iv) deliberately did not suggest changes to social policy. However, it was used to guide changes. Quoting now from http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-ColemanReport.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-ColemanReport.html > First, it showed that variations in school quality (as indexed by the usual measures such as per pupil expenditure, size of school library, and so on) showed little association with levels of educational attainment, when students of comparable social backgrounds were compared across schools. (Differences in students' family backgrounds, by comparison, showed a substantial association with achievement.) Second, a student's educational attainment was not only related to his or her own family background, but also (less strongly) to the backgrounds of the other students in the school. These findings had clear implications for social engineering: opportunities could best be equalized via strategies of desegregation of schools (for example by busing). They challenged a major plank of Lyndon Johnson's vision for the Great Society; namely, that increased spending on education could rectify social deficits. To answer your question "Did the Coleman Report do much to change the views of sociologists" - yes. Your earlier statements suggested that you knew something about sociology and it's historical mistakes and developments. Your questions now, which are easily answered and are seemingly a standard part of sociology (Coleman's work is on the Wikipedia page for Sociology), suggest otherwise. Going back to my question, what is the equivalent in sociology to proposing that a perpetual motion machine can work? I gave an example - that a human culture can remain unchanged over 500,000 years. Are there sociologists who believe this to be true? Could I, though force of argument, convince a large number of sociologists that this is true? I believe that is the basis of your opposition. I do not believe so. There is neither biological nor archeological evidence to suggest this is the case. If you do not like that one, what is your equivalent?