He's got to go really.....

[jj]

Reggie Perrin wrote:
> Anthropology and ethnology don't have much to do with
> sociology, it's a common mistake.
But not one that I made- I was expanding upon the various
disciplines of the study of Man to highlight other more scientifically
valid methodologies.

> If you haven't actually read
> one sociological work, not a text book, then you're not
> informed enough about the subject. I've read one.....
I've read something like 20. And I have a degree-level statistical
education, and have read, inter alia, Popper and Gould on the
subject of Sociology's rather poor validity.

>Damning a whole subject because of a cliche
> is being closed-minded to say the least.
I'm always wary of throwing baby out with the bath-water, but my
overall reading regrettably leads me to my above conclusion.

[jj]

Reggie Perrin wrote:
> You were generalising then. People who waffle about
> anthropology and ethnology when trying to talk about sociology
> are showing their ignorance.
Re-read my post and try to understand it.


> Sounds like you've read books about sociology rather than
> actual works of sociology.
Did I say that? No. If you like, I'll post you a reading-list.

Popper was not a sociologist anyway
I didn't say he was- my clear implication was that the major fault
of sociology lies in epistemology, upon which Popper was eminently
qualified to comment.

> and 'Inter Alia' is a work of philosophy.....
No, it's a Latin expression meaning 'amongst other things', which
if you'd had the slightest education you would have known. It's
not a particularly uncommon expression in English.

> ....['inter alia'....] and that has almost nothing to do with sociology,
Good grief.


> A stats based degree doesn't mean you know anything
> about soc than anybody else.
I didn't say I had a stats-based degree. My education was
significantly broader than that- and yours, by the sound of it.


> Not good enough.
Indeed. This is poor stuff, Sir.