Is Sociology a genuine science?

What does /Sci/ think?

Is there a theory to Society?

Sociology, at its core, is aggregating demographic statistics. The US census is gathered by sociologists. The problem with sociology is that it got infiltrated by progressive humanities "researchers" who happened to have "adjacent" expertise. These new pseudo-sociologists imbued a sterile data collecting discipline with political correctness, and stated which data should be kept and which should be distorted.

Imagine if, over night, particle physicists were all replaced with philosophers who publish only interpretations of quantum mechanics, and rejected any interpretations that they felt marginalized minority groups. That's what happened to sociology.

>>16713633
Mindbroken cuck

>>16713642
What is it about me mentioning minority groups that primed your mind toward cuckoldry?

>>16713632 (OP)
Softcore psychology for people who are too prudish for all the sex stuff.

>>16713643
I can tell by the distinct stench of your post, subhuman rat.

>>16713643
Hard to miss in a Sociology thread??

Any other moves??

>>16713632 (OP)
It's like economics or climate "science" in that it's completely backward looking and can't be modeled predictively into the future. So no, not science, more like historical archiving or literary nonfiction.

>>16713632 (OP)
I think there is obviously use to Sociology for example we can see the theory to society in Iran didn't work out with the Mahsa Amini protests causing the government to becoming slightly more left leaning with electing Masoud Pezeshkian, or in Haiti we had Haiti not being able to recover from all the coups, disasters, and foreign mending in the country causing people who were in poverty to join gangs and Haiti to go into a state of anarchy and chaos. We can also see places like Japan, where there is a strict culture and harsh penalties, causing crime to be very low. We even saw this in WW2 how much Japanese soldiers valued their culture for better or worse (ie kamikazes, Japanese soldiers not being allowed to surrender/bushido or rape of Nanking). The first and last of those 3 were obviously very bad and arguably the second too, but a strict culture for people allowed Japan to thrive too
So yes I do think sociology is a genuine science but it's also not a perfect science.

what is sociology? how is it differentiated from economics and philosophy (in particular ethics and political philosophy)?

>>16713632 (OP)
no, it was attempted to create sociology as a physics of society, this was abandoned in the early 1900s because it didnt work and Max Webber called on sociologists to pivot into political activism

>>16713632 (OP)
Not in my field (Math and Elec-Engi.), but I like this french spoken guy about experiences in Sociology :
https://www.youtube.com/@Fouloscopie/videos

Especially this one about the maths behind a school of fish :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch7VxxTBe1c

Or this one on grouping robots :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CaVhGTG8eA

>>16713632 (OP)
>>16713632 (OP)
Only theory for society that makes sense is to genetically engineer rich people to goddess and kill or enslave poor people. Why? Because rich is good and poor is bad. Only the top %1 of the human race is elligable to reproduce and save humanity. After destroying the %99 percent of the world, allow %1 percent to repopoulate the human race for a time. Then kill %99 percent of the remaining population and loop.

>>16713840
Ok now name one time sociologists implemented a theory that led to a positive change in any society and not backfired horribly.

>>16713643
his crippling BBC addiction no doubt

So what prevents people from creating a better society?

Do we all need to work together?

>>16713632 (OP)
The only thing I’ve found that can make any predictions would be elite theory + cliodynamics. Peter Turchin essentially used elite theory to create a model for social collapse. Of course academic sociologists are progressives that just sit in the corner and play with crayons, they’re not doing any real work.

>>16714627
That only leads to a complete loss of all genetic diversity to the point where everyone would be a clone

>>16713633
>Imagine if...
Lol. Lmao.

>>16713632 (OP)
Yes, but it's based on a false premise, just like its predecessor Human Ethology and its successor Evolutionary Psychology.

It takes a reductionist approach to explaining social evolution (ie. "selfish" genes) and disregards factors that are cultural yet materialist.

The best example for biological reductionism producing weak theories is altruism, where it needs to invoke the human mind being a) a calculator that knows the percentage of genes shared with another human in order to know whether to help, and/or b) able to predict future events and whether a helpful act "pays off" later.
When a much simpler explanation is that an individual was socialized to behave a certain way because it's beneficial for the group.

The fedora-tipping overlord Dawkins himself knew this, hence he also coined memetics to explain cultural phenomena in a reductionist manner, but this area of research obviously never produced anything useful.