linhdtu,
The much larger question--and, for me, the far more important question--is why are the social sciences trying to emulate the "hard" sciences in their approach to their subject matter? By attempting to gain the legitimacy (for some) for the social sciences that are accorded the "hard" sciences, the social sciences have to limit their inquiries to subject matter that has virtually no relevance in the real world. As early back as the Sixties, Floyd Matson in "The Broken Image" explained what a fruitless enterprise it was for the social sciences to emulate the "hard" sciences.
Even earlier, the great philosopher of science, Karl Popper, showed how Marxism and psychoanalysis are not "sciences" at all. This discussion has been going on for almost a hundred years, but American sociology continues down this nonsensical path.
Interestingly, a person in the news right now, Vanis Varoufakis, the combative former fiance minister of Greece, spoke recently about his disenchantment with statistical analyses in economics that were/are all the rage in Anglo-Saxon universities. It was this intellectual disenchantment that led to his embrace of Marxism.
None of the above is to defend LaCour in any way. But this whole statistical project in American sociology has always been very suspect to me.
After all, are Marx and Weber and Mannheim and the Frankfurt School any less great social theorists, because they didn't employ statistical models? I think the answer is obvious.
Bladerunner
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
