AI could have written this: Birth of a classist slur in knowledge work [pdf]

> HN's resistance to sociology stems from the discomfort of being confronted with uncomfortable truths

I'm asking for actual scientific evidence of it. We're not talking about the paper (although the exact same issues are present there too). It's not a category error when a specific and falsifiable causal claim about reality is being made.

Critical theory doesn't get a "free pass" - if there's no actual evidence, nor repeatability, quite literally all it is doing is grievance airing in an academic tone. While philosophically interesting, nothing of scientific value is being added.

And this is exactly what I mean when I say Sociology lacks evidence and intellectual rigour. It'll make big claims about reality ("resistance to sociology is due to being confronted with uncomfortable truths"). And then when pressed for reasonable evidence to back it up all there is is hand wringing and justifications about critical theory and epistemology.

I'm sorry but, no, you don't get to make sweeping claims about reality as though you're an -ology, and not do any of the ground work to be respected as an -ology. This is exactly why sociology is laughed out of scientific circles such as HN - maybe it has nothing to do with "uncomfortable truths" and everything to do with a complete lack of physical, repeatable evidence.

Honestly, the tone policing and boundary policing here aren’t very scientific. You can’t have it both ways. Either commit to the epistemology argument fully, or not at all, but you've set up a heads I win, tails you lose set of rules when it comes to epistemic choice.

It is hard to escape how this fits back into the original topic - dismissal re-enforces epistemological status - one that places yours at the top. I’m sure you’re aware of this dynamic playing out in this very discussion.

You can't say "HN's resistance stems from psychological discomfort" (empirical claim) and then retreat to "there are multiple epistemologies" (relativist defence) when challenged. You're held to the epistemic standards your claim invokes.

If you'd made a claim like "Critical theory suggests that HN's resistance stems from psychological discomfort" I'd have a lot less to say. It still suffers from the same evidence issues but at least you're being clear it isn't a scientific claim - so you wouldn't be getting pressed for scientific evidence.

> There are more epistemologies in the world than just the scientific.

Yes, different epistemologies have different domains, boundaries, and use cases (sometimes they overlap too). This is why scientific analysis is useless for literature - and why literary analysis is useless for science.

This is just like how you can't do brain surgery with a jackhammer, and you can't dig concrete with a scalpel. Statistical analysis on poetry is nonsensical, and no one would accept a literary analysis on quantum mechanics as physics.

Different tools are fit for different purposes.

> the tone policing and boundary policing here aren’t very scientific

I'm not tone policing, I'm holding you to the scientific standard after you made a scientific claim. Calling standards enforcement "tone policing" is just another way to avoid accountability.

"Boundary policing" in science isn't some arbitrary gatekeeping - it's essential intellectual hygiene. Good science is acutely aware of:

- What methods can and cannot establish

- The scope and limits of findings

- When they're stepping outside their domain of expertise

- The difference between correlation and causation

- What constitutes sufficient evidence for different types of claims

This is why we have concepts like:

- Statistical power and confidence intervals

- Replication requirements

- Peer review processes

- Methodological limitations sections in papers

This boundary distinction is the entire foundation of reliable knowledge production.

> you've set up a heads I win, tails you lose set of rules when it comes to epistemic choice.

You did this to yourself when you made a scientific claim without scientific evidence. It's not my fault when I point out you built your argument on epistemic quicksand.

You want to make truth claims with scientific authority while escaping scientific accountability.

> I’m sure you’re aware of this dynamic playing out in this very discussion.

Yes it's meta, your original claim still requires evidence though.