3 ms·
The point of sociology, like all the humanist sciences (even languages) is to change the world, not to study it. The highest good in social sciences is social c
by candiodari 4y ago
The point of sociology, like all the humanist sciences (even languages) is to change the world, not to study it. The highest good in social sciences is social change, and methods to achieve it. You're applying positivist ideas to non-positivist sciences.
For humanist sciences truth is a tool in service of a higher, moral goal. Just like lying is another tool. Both are to be used, and whether some claim is true or false is not nearly as relevant as whether it can change society. For languages truth is irrelevant, after all you're studying fiction. Fiction is mean to convey "higher truths", which can in practice be anything from amusement to outright deception.
Often people in these sciences go further and go for outright postmodernism, which disputes that truth and falsehood even exist at all. It's just a matter of perspective.
- onetimeusename 4y agothat sounds terrifying. they are given grant money for this.
- Garlef 4y agoSomething being terrifying does not make it true.
- Garlef 4y agoThis is a great example of precisely what I find problematic about applying logic in a simplified way. In itself the argument seems valid. But it relies on assumptions that are (at best) highly debatable: First, the author of the post assumes that the definition of the humanities he presents is universally true (carried by everyone). It is not: I never heard of it before, and I don't agree with it. To me it's just part of a taxonomy of how departments in universities are partitioned. Second, even under the assumption that this definition was universally shared, the argument presupposes that this definition would then also fully determine the actual praxis. Which I highly doubt. Third, the point about lying is just a bunch of fear mongering BS. Etc etc.