Hello Angela and Gerwyn,

Angela wrote i.a. (and I cut out what I will not comment on):
Quote Originally Posted by Angela Kennedy View Post
@ Gerwyn, I'm also a social scientist per se - my specialty is sociology, so logical fallacies and rhetorical and ideological use of language is one of my research interests, hence my use of understanding of logical fallacies - which are CRUCIAL to understanding social sciences (including psychology and medicine for that matter !) Reliability and numbers is not enough, if construct validity is flawed (i.e. like circular reasoning in psychogenic explanations for example?)

I'm also a social science research methodology teacher with a postgraduate qualification in research methodology.

Nice, Angela - I'd guessed already you are methodologically savvy! (Without ME I'd probably ended up academically in philosophy of science or logic or methodology).

I find your "so" interesting and true, and if I had written it about the socalled social sciences it would have been in part satirical (since SO much of the social sciences involve a lot of "logical fallacies and rhetorical and ideological use of language").

Ditto for your "hence". And for my (brief but clear) take on the subject of logical fallacies:

-- https://maartensz.org/philosophy/.../F/Fallacy.htm

My own sarcasm/irony agrees with your "CRUCIAL" - especially since in fact there is only a small minority in any of the social sciences, and in psychology or medicine, who ARE statistically, logically, methodologically and/or mathematical savvy. (Most don't care and/or are no good in anything mathematical.)

I agree with Gerwyn that - in my words - while psychology is a soft science it is not a social science, though parts of it, like social psychology, overlap with it or may be classified like it. (I am a psychologist but got my M.A. in it mainly on mathematical, logical and programming subjects, and apart from that mostly specialized in cognitive psychology).

As to sociology-as-a-science: I have read a lot of pure drivel and/or ideology-pretending-to-be-science, but there is good science that is nominally sociological: Aristotle, Machiavelli, Mosca, Weber, Aron, C. Wright Mills and some more.

Question for Angela: I read Weber's "Economy and Society" in part in German (it's two fat volumes in pretty academic German, and suffers from the German academic sin of 'Deutschgruendlichkeit'). He surely had a logical mind, whence my question: Do you know of a book - preferably freely available on line - with the definitions of his "Economy and Society" (in part I of my edition) in tolerable English?

That would be most helpful, not only to me, but to anyone who might want some clear thinking and writing on sociological and/or political issues.