[Air-l] Definitions

[Ellis Godard]

Jeremy wrote:
> Science is merely systematic study...

I appreciate your de-essentializing science. But rather than invoke
divergent uses of the term (many instances of which are sloppy at best), you
might consider an operationalization of science as variable along many
dimensions, including its generality, simplicity, validity, testability, and
originality. The more of each of these that an idea (or person,
organization, etc.) is, the more scientific it is. (1)

> ... If you want to be a scientist, that is  
> fine though, don't be surprised if it ends up as 
> much of a dead-end as the 'pure sociology' of the
> late 60's.

The dead-ended nonsense of the 1960s is no critique of science. It wasn't
particularly scientific, nor was it pure sociology - a phrase whose (mis)use
I can't ignore.

Ward's (1903) book _Pure Sociology_ was a social critique based on
evolution; it was arguably sociological, but not purely so. Simmel used the
phrase decades later, but his work was almost entirely phenomenological,
focusing exclusively on aspects of individuals qua individuals. 

The phrase is contemporaneously used by (and to describe the work of)
several dozen scholars worldwide. Their (our) work is a revolutionary
*reaction* to 60s dead-endedness, not an extension of it. (2)

-eg

(1) Donald Black. 1995. "The Epistemology of Pure Sociology". Law and Social
Inquiry 20:829-870

(2) Note various works by M.P. Baumgartner, James Tucker, Mark Cooney,
Joseph Michalski, Marian Borg, Allen Horwitz, Marcus Kondkar, Calvin
Morrill, Roberta Senechal de la Roche, James Tucker, and myself. See also
Donald Black. 1979. "A strategy of pure sociology". Pages 149-168 in
Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology, edited by Scott G. McNall. New York:
St. Martin's Press. /and/ Donald Black. 2000. "Dreams of Pure Sociology."
Sociological Theory 18(3):343-367.