Comment by miningape
1 day ago
The study should tackle these questions in one form or another:
1. What specific, measurable phenomenon would constitute 'discomfort with uncomfortable truths' versus legitimate methodological concerns?
2. How would we distinguish between the two empirically?
I'd expect a study or numerical analysis with at least n > 1000, and p < 0.05 - The study will ideally have controls for correlation, indicating strong causation. The study (or cross analyses of it) should also explore alternative explanations, either disproving the alternatives or showing that they have weak(er) significance (also through numerical methods).
I'm not sure what kinds of data this result could be derived from, but the methods for getting that data should be cited and common - thus being reproducible. Data could also be collected by examining alternative "inputs" (independent variables: i.e. temperament towards discomfort), or by testing how inducing discomfort leads to resistance to ideas, or something else.
I'd expect the research to include, for example, controls where the same individuals evaluate methodologically identical studies from other fields. We'd need to show this 'resistance' is specific to sociology, not general scientific skepticism.
That's to say: The study should also show, numerically and repeatably, that there are legitimate correlations between sociological studies inducing discomfort, and that it is not actual methodological concerns.
This would include:
1. Validated scales measuring "discomfort" or cognitive dissonance
2. Behavioural indicators of resistance vs. legitimate critique
3. Control groups exposed to equally challenging but methodologically sound research
4. Control groups exposed to less challenging but equally methodologically sound research (to the level of sociology)
Also, since we're making a claim about psychology and causation, the study would ideally be conducted by researchers outside of sociology departments to avoid conflicts of interest - preferably cognitive psychologists or neuroscientists using their methodological standards.
Thanks. I understand what happened here. This is a critical discussion paper and you're making the category error of judging it by the rubric of scientific epistemology.
Wait... You made a specific, falsifiable, and causal scientific claim based on your sociology experience:
> HN's resistance to sociology stems from the discomfort of being confronted with uncomfortable truths
I'm asking for actual scientific evidence of it. We're not talking about the paper (although the exact same issues are present there too). It's not a category error when a specific and falsifiable causal claim about reality is being made.
Critical theory doesn't get a "free pass" - if there's no actual evidence, nor repeatability, quite literally all it is doing is grievance airing in an academic tone. While philosophically interesting, nothing of scientific value is being added.
And this is exactly what I mean when I say Sociology lacks evidence and intellectual rigour. It'll make big claims about reality ("resistance to sociology is due to being confronted with uncomfortable truths"). And then when pressed for reasonable evidence to back it up all there is is hand wringing and justifications about critical theory and epistemology.
I'm sorry but, no, you don't get to make sweeping claims about reality as though you're an -ology, and not do any of the ground work to be respected as an -ology. This is exactly why sociology is laughed out of scientific circles such as HN - maybe it has nothing to do with "uncomfortable truths" and everything to do with a complete lack of physical, repeatable evidence.
[dead]