Evidently the capitalists have seized the means of pressing multiquote…
We’ve been over this Glutton, your lack of understanding is not a lack of honesty on my part. Who’d a thunk it?
Trying to get you to define your own terms in an objective, consistent manner, cogent, cohesive manner? I’m sure it seems awful, just awful to you. It’s no fair, you want to posit your gloss as something that’s just “fact” and doesn’t have to be supported, defined in objective terms, etc… But, nope. Trying to get you to actually provide a rational argument based on objective definitions is hardly defining anything out of existence. What’s actually happened is that you’re inventing things and, then when they evaporate under scrutiny, you’re complaining that it’s the fault of the person who pointed out that the emperor is nekkid, because they defined his damn fine raiment right out of existence.
Funny, asking for cohesive, objective definitions doesn’t define alpha radiation out of existence. It doesn’t define a phospholipid bilayer out of existence. It doesn’t define oxidation or reduction out of existence. It doesn’t define meitosis out of existence. It doesn’t define a parabolic ballistic trajectory out of existence. It doesn’t define shifts in allelic frequency out of existence. it doesn’t…
Does it not strike you as odd that for some phenomena, defining them gives an objective, consistent definition and framework and for others, it makes them evaporate? And you claim that the problem is that I ask you to try to define your terms, not that your terms evaporate like summer dew under the least little bit of sun.
That doesn’t suggest anything to you?
ZOMG!
Well gee gorsh wilickers! That sure proves it.
Please tell me that you understand that the models used by (some but not all) sociologists are no more a 1st level order of reality than (some but not all) cultural anthropologists’ models are 1st level order of reality than (some but not all) psychologists’ models are 1st level order of reality than (some but not all) literary critics’ models are a 1st level order of reality ? Right? You do understand that an abstraction is a 2nd level order, right? Or 3rd in some cases (and so on).
You do understand that “this group of sociologists believes thus and such” is about as objective, in many cases, as the ‘correct’ position in a debate between post-modernists and post-structuralists trying to analyze a specific literary text. You do grok that a Marxist or a feminist or a Chicago School of a text is not any more ‘objective’ than a post-modern analysis of the same text, right? That things like the dispute between positivists and antipositivists is because the discipline is such that it cannot, ever, behave like hard sciences in which you can look at entities and always define their atomic number and whether something is hydrogen or helium doesn’t rest on the interpretative framework that’s being applied.
You do understand that, right?
Ah, a direct wiki cut and paste. That’ll sure make the argument. But you have to understand it and not just block-quote it, glutton.
“In the modern Western context, stratification typically comprises three layers: upper class, middle class, and lower class. Each class may be further subdivided into smaller classes (e.g. occupational).” What do you think that means? That the classes are always objective, that we don’t have to pick and choose and create our own artificial delineations to describe all of them? That based on how you “subdivide” groups, you won’t obtain a model that’s essentially different from other models? That instead of a schema of low-middle-high, we couldn’t create virtually any other schema of classification?
Wow. Yeah, sociology will be a science like physics round about when literary criticism becomes a science like physics. Of course sociologists can swing the lingo and look at things from a (relatively) unified framework, but do you really not understand what it means that each can have their own “number of identifiable social classes” or the “precise boundaries between them” varies based on who you ask? Do you not understand that how we divide them will show whether or not, and to what degree, they’re “stratified and hierarchical”? You do understand that in virtually all human relationships, always, there will be imbalance and inequality, and even if you get down to defining classes-of-one, you’ll always somehow find hierarchy and stratification because of that imbalance and inequality?
It really doesn’t strike you as odd that there can be multiple frameworks in sociology, each of which can see the same event in sometimes wildly different terms, and no interpretation is necessarily any more true than any other?
That’s good science?