I think science, all science needs to prove why common wisdom is wrong. After all if common wisdom is right, no need for science. Why do we need science above and often contradicting what we just see in everyday life?
For the natural sciences, they can say I see germs and common wisdom does not because I have microscopes. You cannot see germs with the bare eye. Galilei had a telescope and his opponents did not. Fine, this is a good explanation.
On the other hand, the sociologist does not use microscopes. Does not use any method that are not available to common wisdom.
So their main claim is that common wisdom is wrong because it is distorted by power relations. Yet, social science is somehow not.
Do you believe this?
Even if one believes it, seeing through such distortions is not science. It is a version of enlightened wisdom.
Marx is not a good illustration for that. In fact I can't even think of anyone famous who would be. Economists maybe but sociology, social psychology etc. not. Which implies these are not the most impactful elements of social science. Almost all of the truly famous and impactful ones were closer to some kind of a visionary philosopher.
I think science, all science needs to prove why common wisdom is wrong. After all if common wisdom is right, no need for science. Why do we need science above and often contradicting what we just see in everyday life?
For the natural sciences, they can say I see germs and common wisdom does not because I have microscopes. You cannot see germs with the bare eye. Galilei had a telescope and his opponents did not. Fine, this is a good explanation.
On the other hand, the sociologist does not use microscopes. Does not use any method that are not available to common wisdom.
So their main claim is that common wisdom is wrong because it is distorted by power relations. Yet, social science is somehow not.
Do you believe this?
Even if one believes it, seeing through such distortions is not science. It is a version of enlightened wisdom.
Multiple regression, large scale experiments and national statistics have entered the chat.
Marx is not a good illustration for that. In fact I can't even think of anyone famous who would be. Economists maybe but sociology, social psychology etc. not. Which implies these are not the most impactful elements of social science. Almost all of the truly famous and impactful ones were closer to some kind of a visionary philosopher.
My point was just that social sciences do in fact have tools that are not available to the ordinary person.