I was thinking about something Razib Khan said – that sociology is useful, because it has negative predictive value. He’s probably right, but when you think about it, that’s odd. There are a lot more possible wrong theories than right ones – which means that identifying the right theories is difficult. Identifying anti-correct theories, exact negatives of the truth, should be just as difficult. Perverse, too, of course, but who’s counting?
Considering that sociologists typically deny the very existence of some of the most important causal factors on human behavior (like genetics), you’d think their theories would make about as much sense as Galenic medicine or Freudian psychology – not even wrong. Their theories should not make antisense – more like random nonsense.
Probably they manage this by denying experience. Experience can show that a method works centuries before anyone has a correct theory of why it works. There are things that your grandmother (and her grandmother) knew – (the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, blood is thicker than water) – and without those grannies, sociologists wouldn’t know what to disbelieve.