It’s not to deny that there are many things in this world that can be quantifiable. There are, and science would be a lovely tool to work with that. But there are equally many things in this world that cant be quantifiable. And more often than not, they are what means the most to us – eg. relationships. And science isn’t the best tool to lay a truth claim to all that. I would argue that the sum of society is more than just numbers, so it is not all what science can see, or that it ever could.

Then again, for those who pursue ‘pure’ science, sometimes it is difficult for them to control the direction of their research… and the results scientific research do end up being given to other people, in this case, business-people; and science just ends up being business research all over again.

But really, the helplessness of the situation and of the statement is not just inherent to the general concept of ‘business,’ but really, is directly resulting from the difference in ideals between scientists and business people. It falls out of the principle that mainstream science is directly controlled and directed by the flow of capital.

But, if you think of it that way, then even business people aren’t at the top of the food chain. The capitalist business machine, in fact, caters to the needs, wants and opinions of consumers, another facet of our societal consciousness. Notice how I say consumers and not society. If business catered to society then they would be trying to satisfying both wants and the needs of society. But I said consumers, meaning that business tries to satisfy what people want.

Interestingly enough, the same sort of difference in ideals exists between consumers vs. business people and business people vs. scientists. In the same way that one can say science is just business research, one can also say that business is just consumer catering. The statement reflects the same feeling of anxiety the practitioner feels towards the idealistic differences between them (scientists) and the client (businesses or ultimately, consumers), because ironically enough, even though one may pursue business for the sake of personal actualization or personal benefit, its success in practice is only achievable through due consideration of impersonal or extra-personal idealistic structures of the masses, public opinion, whether they be corrupt or not. So, even though the phrase “science is just business research” may suggest that the ideal of intellectual pursuit in science is inhibited by its dependence on the pursuits of businesses, in the same way, the business-related ideals of prosperity and wealth are also hampered by corrupt ideals that consumers pursue: gluttony, waste, laziness, selfishness, close-minded individualism, pride/arrogance…

Though we (general society) largely have been taught of another perspective, there are humble and benevolent ideals to business as well. Business is the practice of economic productivity and prosperity, meant to bring to the people, among others, comfort, security, sustenance, collective vitality and above all, potential to better society. And to the people of business who live and die in the pursuit of those ideals, I guess it would also be disheartening to see their corruption manifested in consumer culture, which in a large part, is a part of our own consciousness – our own tendencies towards laziness, inaction towards larger than personal problems, brainlessness, lack of initiative to work towards societal benefit rather than just personal benefit. But don’t worry, I’m not blaming anyone for this. I KNOW that I have these tendencies as well. It’s just something I’d like to run through people’s minds now and then.

Sociologists can’t take something into the laboratory and construct a clean theory based on controlled evidence. Sociologists can’t do the same thing over and over again and expect the same results. The study of society, in that sense, is hardly a science. Social scientists would like to say they’re using the “scientific method” – but they’re certainly not getting very scientific results.

The premise of our entire course is based almost solely on limited case studies, anecdotal evidence, and ideologue.

I haven’t asserted what I’ve said is right or wrong, I’ve merely asserted opinions from the point of view of Capitalists and Sociologists. As we well know, opinions can certainly not be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. In fact, I never even said sociologists were ‘wrong’; I did however, mean to say that Sociologists do not have much of a stronger case than Capitalists when it comes to ‘improving’ society. Given that Capitalists can easily list examples and mathematical proofs of economics, I might even say the Capitalists have a stronger case than Sociologists.

In addition, I think you may need a reference point for money. $75000 is a lot of money. Having been raised by a single parent making $40000, I think anything over that is a luxury. Has the extra money given you a better opportunity? Is being a private school really better? From my perspective, it hasn’t done much. If private schools buy you a job, or buys you happiness, then I’d believe it. But it doesn’t – all I see is it buys you attitude.

And yes, I would not be happy with a $75000 income. It’s just not enough in today’s world. Kids are expensive to raise, you know that. And I certainly want to maximize opportunity for myself and for my kids. In this world that means being able to send them off to the best schools and live in the best neighbourhoods. This isn’t a question of whether the world is a good or not place (I already commented on that), or about feeling about the guy who makes a dollar a day, but what is necessary to have the best opportunities here. And the SOC textbook certainly points out those who make more money are happier.

I’d also, still in your first paragraph, like to ask who does have the “right” to try to improve the world. Do you? You seem to think you do have the right to say what’s right and what’s wrong.

Again, defending Sociology, keep in mind it does not deal with individuals at all. If you want to know what your neighbour is doing tomorrow (probably go to work?), look at psychology. That’s made very clear in the textbooks.

Other than that, nice pro-globalization piece, I suppose. I’m going to reply to the other post about money. I’m assuming that’s the side you support more than this one.