The Vast Majority of Sociology is Useless.

Thanks for having me. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank my opponent for giving me the privilege of debating him and for showing me the beginner's guide. It helped clarify what observers thought to be an unbeatable truism. Let's begin.Sociology is a new subject. It entails the need to understand all of society’s social phenomena and its implications. However, most of its research capabilities are flawed, considering how social theorists lack the ability to pin down and weed out any and all extraneous variables. I will start with the secularization thesis and expound more towards the founding fathers.The Paradigm of the Secularization ThesisOne of the best pioneering works of modern sociology is the secularization thesis which itself is regarded as the intellectual biography of sociology. In his book Steve Bruce outlines the core thesis of his paradigm(1):“…the declining power of religion causes a decline in the number of religious people and the extent to which people are religious. As religious faith loses social power, it becomes harder for each generation to socialize its children in the faith. It also becomes progressively harder for those who remain religious to preserve the cohesion and integrity of their particular belief system. As religion becomes increasingly a matter of free choice, it becomes harder to maintain boundaries. Alternative reworkings of once-dominant ideologies proliferate and increasing variation encourages first relativism – all roads lead to God – and then indifference as it becomes harder to persuade people that there is special merit in any particular road” ~Steve BruceI expect this theory to be of some use to certain individuals, particularly to those that harbor anti-religious sentiments. Nevertheless, arguments merit not on whether the theory’s aim has actual relevance to the social sphere but rather merit on the methodologies which Steve and a handful of social scientists conduct themselves. Steve Bruce gathered a handful of sources by enlisting the help of Professor David Voas, Bryan Wilson and other agencies including the United Kingdom Census, The European Social Survey & The Gallup Poll (1). In addition, evidence were also gathered to devise a soft comparison on the different level of religiosity between different countries. The methodology of his collective work is grounded in quantitative research (2). Quantitative research is as David Voas mentions in the podcast, provided indications of religiosity so that a degree of generalization is acceptable. Voas contended that case studies are more in depth but argued that his social surveys did somehow provides cues that were neither simplistic, nor reductionist (2). He argued that his structured way of questioning should provide at least a certain degree of the actual level of religiosity.The structured way of questioning involves the following methodologies(1):1) Social Questionnaires2) Short-Close ended interviews3) Participant ObservationAnd these categories, according to Bruce all assess(1):1) Self-Identification (agnostic, atheist etc)2) Degree of Religious Commitment to Church Institutions3) Church AttendanceAll of the categories combined have formed what is known as the secular thesis itself. For it to be representative in-depth forms of data are discarded and so not a single social scientist decides to evaluate it on a case-by case basis. Interviews are given close-ended, and answers rarely lurk beyond the "yes" or "no" spectrum.This is essentially the problem with sociology. In the podcast, Voas mentions that it is impossible to regard participants as entirely honest since they may be influenced by group think and the likes of social desirability bias. The variables all cloud the results with indefinite forms of bias that it’s almost impossible to regard it as actual truth itself. Take into consideration how simplified the test and the questionnaires are in evaluating the level of religious commitment. We are debating the level of religious commitment and that is hardly something to be answered with just a yes or a no.Moreover, the studies conducted by social scientists span out, as the measure of religiosity depend on the level of church attendees. They devote months of research all the while collectively accumulating all sorts of extraneous variables that could possibly cloud the results. The results are far fetched from the truth and social scientist are dipping into the obscene. This is neither productive nor useful.Back and Forth Pointless BickeringUpon publishing his work, he received heavy criticism from Rodney Stark and Bainbridge. Stark, responsible for creating case-by case studies on Mormonism(3) argued that Bruce failed to provide the revival aspects of different types of denomination. Conservative denominations of both Islam and Christianity have gained traction while the liberal overhaul of religion loses support over time.Stark is able to exploit the plot holes of what Bruce originally suspected to be flaws of his own study and while Bruce admits that his thesis resemble nothing like Boyle’s law(1), Bruce is trying at a different angle by arguing that his theory is at least representative on the indication of religiosity.These are entirely trivial, petty concerns. Not a single use can be gained by endorsing either side. If Stark wins, society probably has an indication of some sort of predisposition towards religion and vice versa will apply should Bruce win. If both scientists prefer to argue into an infinite amount of brawls of how church membership dictates religiosity, then I'm afraid yet compelled to say that this is the perfect definition of uselessness.What’s the point of gathering a conglomerate amount of social funds and social agencies just to publish a study that only provides a level of religiosity? That seems perfectly counter-intuitive to me despite it being the supposed pioneering works of modern sociology.Inherent Founding-Father BiasnessBiasness is the best way to prove it's actual use in a particular field, as the result will surely be invalid due to the effects of bias. Both modern sociology and traditional sociology failed to pass this test.This is one of the easiest to observe, and I expect that it will be seen the moment someone takes an elective course in sociology. Founding fathers provide a context of understanding. Take astronomy for example, we hail Aristotle and Ptolemy as the founding fathers because they were the first to provide natural observation of the cosmos, albeit a bit superstitious. On the other hand, Sociology pits itself on a long list of some of the worst bias I’ve ever seen.The founding fathers of the leftist sociological perspective are that of Karl Marx, Simone De Beauvoir and Antonio Gramsci. All of which promote a sense of radical change that neither endorse social institutions of the status quo nor support it. The success of these so called leftist advocates manages to outmaneuver almost all of the conservative sociological perspectives. It is surprising that they actually have a right to be proud of their leftist triumph by dominating the field of sociology. When Psycholinguistics was a new theory, the main brawl of debates centered on the information theory and learning theory. The advocates of such theories involve Shannon’s theory of communication vs Osgood’s Learning Theory. These were soft defenders, as their theories fail to consider what Judith Greene calls the “Chomsky’s Revolution of Psycholinguistics”(4). Similarly, the same fate falls on sociology. The soft defenders in this case fall on the conservative spectrum. Emile Durkheim and Max Weber all qualify for that label. Max Weber’s movements were largely passive, and it was hard for someone to use his predestined capitalism doctrine as a counter to Karl Marx and Engel’s Communist Theory. His exact words defending religious influence in the era of capitalism(5):“That of Calvinism, even in Germany, was among the strongest, it seems, and the reformed faith more than the others seems to have promoted the development of the spirit of capitalism, in the Wuppertal as well as elsewhere…Finally, that this combination of intense piety with just as strong a development of business acumen, was also characteristic of the pietists, is common knowledge.” ~Max WeberWeber’s defense of religious salesmanship seems to have taken the headline more so than defending capitalism from the overreaches of communist ideology. He was more interested in defending how Calvinism helped the development of Capitalism rather than brawling with the leftist founders. Emile Durkheim on the other hand, seems to be the only one singlehandedly defending the use of current social institutions from radical reforms whilst also juggling attacks to his theory from the radical left. Durkheim, like Gramsci, produced several theories of how society might work. One of his finest work is the mechanism of organic solidarity. He argues that bodies of society are interdependent on each other via a set of rules that are already set in place. Once a deviation is seen, a counter balance is observed to preserve the "collective consciousness" of the group(6).While Weber is busy defending the use of religious influence, Durkheim is defending attacks from the left at the same time devising his own theories. The disproportionate amount of leftist bias is entirely unfair and for a subject that claims to be a science, fairness between both spectrum should be seen, particularly in a field plagued with incomprehensible amount of variables. At its current state, modern sociology is useless.Sources:(1)Secularization: In Defence of an unfashionable theory, Chapter 1-4, Steve Bruce(2)http://tinyurl.com...(3)http://tinyurl.com...(4)Psycholinguistics: Chomsky and Psychology, Judith Greene(5)The Protestent Ethic, Max Weber(6)http://tinyurl.com...