Over the last several months I have been trying to test the extent to
witch sociology is faith based rather than science based.
The questions have ranged fro interest in testing theory, what are the
breakthroughs in sociology as well as the extent to which
there is evidence of adapting over adopting. There was an article that
suggested that sociology was a practice. However, based
on my many years in practice, a practice would be expected to have
breakthroughs, and also do testing of theories.
Much of our time is spent rehashing what has been adopted. We continue
to use instructional materials that are untested and concepts such as
race and the
(isolated) nuclear family that are primitive and not measurable. At the
same time I have seen little interest in the use of landscan on the data
from fMRI and PET scans that show
repeatedly that human thinking is shaped by the definition of the situation.
Perhaps the most discouraging is the continued use of the term mind as
if it were a real thing when all of the data informs us that the the
brain is Mead's mind. His work could be
called Brain, situation and society. In staking out social behavior
sociology has started the illumination of what may be the most important
breakthrough in centuries. But that has been a while.
Can we locate the switch? Do we care? Or is faith enough?
Del
