4 ms·
Your first example is based on moral philosophy, not sociology. Your other two examples - as you note - are based on an explicit prediction. Now the question a
by yummyfajitas 10y ago
Your first example is based on moral philosophy, not sociology.
Your other two examples - as you note - are based on an explicit prediction. Now the question arises - are sociological predictions any good?
You can't simultaneously claim sociology is descriptive, and therefore can't be judged on it's predictions, and then turn around and use it's predictions to describe it as useful.
- coldtea 10y ago>Your first example is based on moral philosophy, not sociology. Sociology is inherently tied with "moral philosophy" and normative ideas about society, and has always been, and it's something sociologists, at least here in Europe, have been perfectly open about (e.g. Foucault Bourdieu, Pierre Bourdieu, Henri Lefebvre and tons of others) It's not, for example, just a positivistic gathering of statistics and a supposedly "neutral" construction of prediction models. >Your other two examples - as you note - are based on an explicit prediction No, they are based on observation of existing conditions. No explicit prediction involved, as noted. At best there's an implicit prediction that's an obvious conclusion from the observations (e.g. "if we reduce macho culture, more women will get into IT").
- yummyfajitas 10y agoNo explicit prediction involved, as noted. At best there's an implicit prediction.. There is a prediction, you are just too afraid of being proven wrong to state it explicitly. I find that a valuable heuristic that you don't believe your own claims. I don't quite know why you want to push policies based on false premises, however. Maybe because your motivation is actually normative but you want to trick me into thinking it is positive?