My exposure to Sociology and Psychology at university made me understand that HN's resistance to sociology stems from the discomfort of being confronted with uncomfortable truths. It's easier to discount sociology than deal with these truths. I get it. I used to be that way too.
Is one of those uncomfortable truths the fact that for our society to make substantial sustainable progress will require the dismantling of a vast structure of oppression that current has a firm grip on our society?
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.
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.
You made a specific claim about human behaviour. Either defend it with evidence or admit you were speculating. The philosophy of science lecture doesn't change that.
You can't say "HN's resistance stems from psychological discomfort" (empirical claim) and then retreat to "there are multiple epistemologies" (relativist defence) when challenged. You're held to the epistemic standards your claim invokes.
If you'd made a claim like "Critical theory suggests that HN's resistance stems from psychological discomfort" I'd have a lot less to say. It still suffers from the same evidence issues but at least you're being clear it isn't a scientific claim - so you wouldn't be getting pressed for scientific evidence.
> There are more epistemologies in the world than just the scientific.
Yes, different epistemologies have different domains, boundaries, and use cases (sometimes they overlap too). This is why scientific analysis is useless for literature - and why literary analysis is useless for science.
This is just like how you can't do brain surgery with a jackhammer, and you can't dig concrete with a scalpel. Statistical analysis on poetry is nonsensical, and no one would accept a literary analysis on quantum mechanics as physics.
Different tools are fit for different purposes.
> the tone policing and boundary policing here aren’t very scientific
I'm not tone policing, I'm holding you to the scientific standard after you made a scientific claim. Calling standards enforcement "tone policing" is just another way to avoid accountability.
"Boundary policing" in science isn't some arbitrary gatekeeping - it's essential intellectual hygiene. Good science is acutely aware of:
- What methods can and cannot establish
- The scope and limits of findings
- When they're stepping outside their domain of expertise
- The difference between correlation and causation
- What constitutes sufficient evidence for different types of claims
This is why we have concepts like:
- Statistical power and confidence intervals
- Replication requirements
- Peer review processes
- Methodological limitations sections in papers
This boundary distinction is the entire foundation of reliable knowledge production.
> you've set up a heads I win, tails you lose set of rules when it comes to epistemic choice.
You did this to yourself when you made a scientific claim without scientific evidence. It's not my fault when I point out you built your argument on epistemic quicksand.
You want to make truth claims with scientific authority while escaping scientific accountability.
> I’m sure you’re aware of this dynamic playing out in this very discussion.
Yes it's meta, your original claim still requires evidence though.
