Comment by kelseyfrog
13 hours ago
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.
13 hours ago
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]