Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If you are anywhere near Kansas City, check out the Justice Files on 90.1 FM Tuesdays from 2 am to 5 am. We'll be talking about this and more. Join the Justice League!! Send stories to: michaeltjustice@aol.com Stream the show station link on the side.
2 comments:
I've been listening to your show for a few years, now, and have never called in for fear that I might sound like the high percentage of jackasses who frequent your show. I think you're a smart man, I had written brilliant, but I think smart is more accurate. I recognize that you use a lot of sociological terms, so I was wondering what your take is on, what I see as, a fundamental flaw of sociology. It is considered a science, but unlike biology or chemistry it is based on generalizations and relies heavily, possibly too much so, on quantitative data . The routine of a sociologist, it seems, is to make a generalization about an aspect of society and at the same time test this generalization objectively. Yet, to me, this seems impossible to do qualitatively, because if you make a generalization of some aspect, then you're already showing a bias. I very much enjoy sociology, but I have a philosophical qualm with its method. I understand that many of the generalizations tested are apparent, and I realize this qualm can probably hold form for any scientific discipline, it just seems to sour me a bit more with sociology. Have you ever questioned the roots of sociology or had thoughts similar to the ones I have? No need to reply, I'll just crawl back to my beat-off shack and throw papers while listening to you get depressed over the high number of jackasses not understanding anything you say. peace
I don't know about sociology. It sounds to me from your short description like it's a scientific method of educated guessing with regards to people. Is that about right?
No need to reply, I like my beat-off shack :)
Post a Comment