I propose we create models to reduce complexity, and then make adjustments to approximate reality with increasing accuracy. If this works out in our favor, let's also give it a name, like science.
The fact that no person can understand everything in detail doesn't mean some of us shouldn't try in some capacity.
Then the human race spent a few centuries studying physics.
Sociology may be running in circles now (i.e. replication crisis), but imagine what it can discover in a similar timeframe.
Meanwhile, our best course is educating ourselves, no matter how futile, because inaction is not a good way to live with other people on the same planet.
See Section 3.3, "Social Theory is Harder than you Think". It would be nice, but I'm very doubtful.
>our best course is educating ourselves, no matter how futile, because inaction is not a good way to live with other people on the same plane
Many possible rebuttals here, but let's take the simplest one: Opportunity cost.
Huemer argues for political inaction, not freezing yourself in a block of ice. All that time you save on politics could be time you spend on e.g. discovering new drugs for terminally ill patients, or making it cheaper to desalinate water. Or, just doing your normal job. These are not easy tasks, certainly not as easy as reading The Sociological Times for 8 hours a day, but they will almost certainly end up doing far more good for people.
Especially if you have a new drug in your hand, or have a better way to get clean water. One tribe will milk the optics, the other will sabotage and rally people against the thing.
Have a co-worker in Kiev, and you say you're worried? Boom, your neighbor buries you under Russian propaganda.
Got vaccinated? Congrats, half your family just disowned you.
Every decision is taking a side, if not in our own minds, then in those who breathe the same air.
But I must say, Andrew, this is awesome, and you gave me a lot to think about.