This does not generalize to sociology topics.
Well, to be honest, I don't think I've ever read an article on a sociology topic in the Britannica, but what I mean to say is that entries on sociology articles on Wikipedia are woeful, woeful. The entry for "Sociology" can politely be described as confusing and unclear. (Cynics will say this reflects the state of the discipline accurately.)
I would recommend a good open-access online encyclopedia for sociology, but I don't know any. So, if you want to learn about a sociology topic, I'm afraid you'll have to make a trip to the library. If that's a university library, chances are they'll have the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Recommended.
Anyway, I was going to link to the worst sociology-related Wikipedia entry I've ever come across, "Rational choice theory in criminology", but it appears to be gone, and good riddance to it. However, while looking for it, I came across a link to a remarkable article entitled "What Is Neoclassical Economics". Here's how it starts:
I didn't read on after those sentences; I think you can understand why. But I shouldn't be surprised. I've come across a few weird journal titles in my day, but I think we have a new frontrunner. The online journal this one's published in is called Post-Autistic Economics Review.
There is nothing more frustrating for critics of neoclassical economics than the argument that neoclassical economics is a figment of their imagination; that, simply, there is scientific economics and there is speculative hand-waiving (by those who have never really grasped the finer points of mainstream economic theory). In this sense, neoclassicism resembles racism: while ever present and dominant, no one claims to be guided by it.
No comments:
Post a Comment