What Makes Malcolm Gladwell Fascinating
linkedin.com
linkedin.com
> "It has long been thought that a theorist is considered great because his theories are true, but this is false. A theorist is considered great, not because his theories are true, but because they are interesting.”
The above aphorism only applies to sociology theorists, not scientific ones. It aptly exposes the central problem with sociology -- an indifference to science and evidence.
Malcolm Gladwell is certainly interesting. But 100 years from now, when Gladwell's name had been completely forgotten, people will still remember Einstein, Hawking and Higgs.
Incidentally, Gladwell popularises psychology, sociology and other human action theories, adding in his own hypotheses (untested, but plausible) for good measure. He ought to differentiate more between his hypotheses and the things he gleans from others, but his work at least raises awareness in the wider public that there is a lot of useful work done in studying humans. It's useful journalism, if taken as such.
Don't confuse Gladwell's journalism with sociology, which has a wide range of qualitative and quantitative methods. As in many academic arenas, there are good, mediocre and bad practitioners. Only the most naive of epistemologists assumes that a whole academic discipline-set is bad because not all of it requires mathematical assistance.
No, it's a comment about an article written by a sociologist, commenting favorably about another sociologist. Neither of them are straw men. Both of them are typical sociologists.
> Gladwell is a journalist, not a sociologist, for starters, and never claims siciology expertise.
The article I quoted from wasn't written by Gladwell, it was written by a sociologist.
> Don't confuse Gladwell's journalism with sociology ...
I didn't. The author of the inked article might have, and that's why I commented as I did.
> which has a wide range of qualitative and quantitative methods.
Yes, but not remotely scientific.
Human frailty of attention exists in all fields, and this does not negate a field because of it. This human ape-weakness happens in physical sciences too: sexy theories (relativity, quantum physics) or outgoing professors (Feynman) receive a lot more public plaudits than the more boring but equally useful work, say on planetary physics, pulsars, telescope or accelerator design, new materials. Sociology is barely 100 years old, and it takes time to iron out the cultural problems in any community of practice. Physical sciences have had centuries. And still they make mistakes: see the peer review issue right now, a hot topic about the publication Science. This a critique of how science is judged, but I don't see people negating the validity of the fields just because there are a lot of bad humans out there in those very fields.
Sociology lives only on evidence. It is not science, because it deals with the mostly stupid human apes' behaviours and activities; humans who do things like make gross generalisations, and cannot see where they are hugely biased, due to emotions such as pride and unwarranted arrogance.
Sociology requires entirely different methods from physical sciences because of the subject matter. Would you copmlain at chemistry for not using partical accelerators, or biologists for sitting in trees observing birds? If you complain about sociologists using sophisticated but different tools from science, then you are doing the same thing.
And finally, that cartoon is one of Randall's (rare) stupid cartoons. It's the perspective of the most reductionist, old-fashioned blinkered Sheldon Cooper from that TV show. Purity? Purity of what? There's no definition to that variable, which is meaningless except by nee-naah.
So, think carefully about your own frailties and biases before you decide that you are "pure".
If you understood science, you would try to locate evidence for your claims. Science doesn't revolve around rhetoric as you seem to believe -- it hinges on repeatable, objective evidence.
> And finally, that cartoon is one of Randall's (rare) stupid cartoons.
That would explain why it's one of his best-known ones, posted everywhere. https://www.google.com/#q=purity+xkcd yields over 30,000 hits.
> Sociology lives only on evidence.
Absurd and false. Shall I tell you the Margaret Mead story, or can I rely on you to educate yourself? Mead's career hinged on a ridiculous study that, in the form of "Coming of Age in Samoa", became gospel among sociologists, even after those she originally interviewed confessed that they invented what they told her. It was a complete fabrication, yet it made Mead's name in the field.
The Mead story is completely typical of the field. There's a reason sociology ranks below psychology in the spectrum of pseudosciences.
> Sociology requires entirely different methods from physical sciences because of the subject matter.
There is one scientific method, not two or six. People who claim they're doing a different kind of science, aren't doing any kind of science.
> Purity? Purity of what? There's no definition to that variable, which is meaningless except by nee-naah.
You obviously don't understand the fatal flaw at the heart of post-modernism. But you know what? I'm not going to try to correct all the defects in your education. That would be an unrequited charity.
Science is clearly defined, and for good reason -- everyone wants the stature of science without the discipline. Science is even defined in the law now, to prevent Creationists from using post-modern (i.e. "it's all opinion, there are no shared truths") arguments in order to get religious teaching into public schools.
So:
>If you understood science, you would try to locate evidence for your claims. Science doesn't revolve around rhetoric as you seem to believe -- it hinges on repeatable, objective evidence.
Then why are you arguing with bald assertions and no facts, if that is all you care about? why aren't you being scientific about your claims here? You are hoist by your own petard, I'm afraid.
>> And finally, that cartoon is one of Randall's (rare) stupid cartoons. >That would explain why it's one of his best-known ones, posted everywhere. https://www.google.com/#q=purity+xkcd yields over 30,000 hits.
You are saying that popularity = truth? Seriously? Especially given the skewed population which "likes" that particular one? Ah, you really are a sophist. That's really poor argumentation, poor thought and you really ought to understand this.
>> Sociology lives only on evidence. >Absurd and false. Shall I tell you the Margaret Mead story, or can I rely on you to educate yourself? Mead's career hinged on a ridiculous study that, in the form of "Coming of Age in Samoa", became gospel among sociologists, even after those she originally interviewed confessed that they invented what they told her. It was a complete fabrication, yet it made Mead's name in the field. The Mead story is completely typical of the field. There's a reason sociology ranks below psychology in the spectrum of pseudosciences.
Mead is not all sociologists. She's an outlier anthrolologist, for starters, and nothing like, say Thorstein Veblen. I could equally say "Science is fraudulent" because scientists used to believe in Phlogiston. Absurd. You love the Straw Man!
>> Sociology requires entirely different methods from physical sciences because of the subject matter. >There is one scientific method, not two or six. People who claim they're doing a different kind of science, aren't doing any kind of science.
Oh dear. There is only one scientific method, you say? You really have no clue. Start with Popper, and then Kuhn's response, and google from there. And see the arguments between experimental and theorietical physicists while you're at it, for fun. And then talk to some of the better professors in the different departments at you local university and see how much more sophisticated than you are at epistemology.
Even if there is only one 'scientific method' (please define that, ha!) it remains that that statistical scientific method is not the only way to understand the world.
>> Purity? Purity of what? There's no definition to that variable, which is meaningless except by nee-naah. You obviously don't understand the fatal flaw at the heart of post-modernism. But you know what? I'm not going to try to correct all the defects in your education. That would be an unrequited charity. >Science is clearly defined, and for good reason -- everyone wants the stature of science without the discipline. Science is even defined in the law now, to prevent Creationists from using post-modern (i.e. "it's all opinion, there are no shared truths") arguments in order to get religious teaching into public schools.
To say there are more ways to understanding than one single method does not equal saying that all ideas are relative. That's a false binary, and again an appalling straw man.
Get reading in the philosophy of science. You manifestly feel the need for certainty where actually there are interesting questions to be asked. None of my arguments are postmodern. Nor do I claim that sociology is the same as science. All I claim, quite plausibly given the evidence of the past 50-100 years, is that sociology is useful, it has empirically-verifiable methods, and that it does not need to be physical science to be useful.
Here's a useful way to see the world: http://comicsthatsaysomething.quora.com/A-Day-at-the-Park
Wait, what? You think sociology is science. That means it's you who seeds to find out science's philosophical underpinnings. Science is noteworthy more for what it excludes than for what it includes. The reasons for that are worth learning.
> To say there are more ways to understanding than one single method does not equal saying that all ideas are relative.
Yes, and I never said or implied it. This is (or was) a discussion of science, not a comparison of science with other ways of apprehending reality.
> ... and again an appalling straw man.
Yes -- your straw man. You've long since stopped paying attention to my views, happily replacing them with your own.
>If you understood science, you would try to locate evidence for your claims. Science doesn't revolve around rhetoric as you seem to believe -- it hinges on repeatable, objective evidence.
Then why are you arguing with bald assertions and no facts, if that is all you care about? why aren't you being scientific about your claims here? Hoist by your own petard, I'm afraid. <br> >> And finally, that cartoon is one of Randall's (rare) stupid cartoons.
>That would explain why it's one of his best-known ones, posted everywhere. https://www.google.com/#q=purity+xkcd yields over 30,000 hits.
You are saying that popularity = truth? Seriously? Especially given the skewed population which "likes" that particular one? Ah, you really are a sophist. That's really poor argumentation, poor thought and you really ought to understand this. <br> >> Sociology lives only on evidence.
>Absurd and false. Shall I tell you the Margaret Mead story, or can I rely on you to educate yourself? Mead's career hinged on a ridiculous study that, in the form of "Coming of Age in Samoa", became gospel among sociologists, even after those she originally interviewed confessed that they invented what they told her. It was a complete fabrication, yet it made Mead's name in the field. The Mead story is completely typical of the field. There's a reason sociology ranks below psychology in the spectrum of pseudosciences.
Mead is not all sociologists. She's an outlier anthrolologist, for starters, and nothing like, say Thorstein Veblen. I could equally say "Science is fraudulent" because scientists used to believe in Phlogiston. Absurd. You love the Straw Man! <br> >> Sociology requires entirely different methods from physical sciences because of the subject matter.
>There is one scientific method, not two or six. People who claim they're doing a different kind of science, aren't doing any kind of science.
Oh dear. There is only one scientific method, you say? You really have no clue. Start with Popper, and then Kuhn's response, and google from there. And see the arguments between experimental and theorietical physicists while you're at it, for fun. And then talk to some of the better professors in the different departments at you local university and see how much more sophisticated than you are at epistemology.
Even if there is only one 'scientific method' (please define that, ha!) it remains that that statistical scientific method is not the only way to understand the world. <br> >> Purity? Purity of what? There's no definition to that variable, which is meaningless except by nee-naah. You obviously don't understand the fatal flaw at the heart of post-modernism. But you know what? I'm not going to try to correct all the defects in your education. That would be an unrequited charity.
>Science is clearly defined, and for good reason -- everyone wants the stature of science without the discipline. Science is even defined in the law now, to prevent Creationists from using post-modern (i.e. "it's all opinion, there are no shared truths") arguments in order to get religious teaching into public schools.
To say there are more ways to understanding than one single method does not equal saying that all ideas are relative. That's a false binary, and again an appalling straw man.
Get reading in the philosophy of science. You manifestly feel the need for certainty where actually there are interesting questions to be asked. None of my arguments are postmodern. Nor do I claim that sociology is the same as science. All I claim, quite plausibly given the evidence of the past 50-100 years, is that sociology is useful, it has empirically-verifiable methods, and that it does not need to be physical science to be useful. <br> Here's a useful way to see the world: