Comment by kelseyfrog
1 day 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.
1 day 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.
There are more epistemologies in the world than just the scientific. Trying to universalize one leads to category errors like this.
Honestly, the tone policing and boundary policing here aren’t very scientific. You can’t have it both ways. Either commit to the epistemology argument fully, or not at all, but you've set up a heads I win, tails you lose set of rules when it comes to epistemic choice.
It is hard to escape how this fits back into the original topic - dismissal re-enforces epistemological status - one that places yours at the top. I’m sure you’re aware of this dynamic playing out in this very discussion.
[dead]