Re: .com/religion
| From: | J Y S Czhang <czhang23@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, September 28, 2001, 17:42 |
|---|
In a message dated 27.09.2001 02:19:20 PM, agricola@WAM.UMD.EDU writes:
> Which is sufficient evidence that the "selector" in question is invalid.
>
>It's a frickin game! It ain't a scientific study!
>
Yepyep... "Pop Sociology" at its most amusin' for peeps (people usin
computers). After some consideration, I give it 2.25 stars outta 5 for sheer
"edutainment value." (it lost marks for bad web design -*gag* the font & size
of fonts!; scanty, sketchy/vague-as-hell descriptions of non-Christian
religions and the differences within Christendom AND a tragic lack of good
links to more in-depth religious websites for the truly curious seeker(s)).
The field of sociology itself is somewhat divided between
pro-number-crunching "sociology-as-hard-science" types and those who are more
humanistic/realistic about social change.
"Pop Sociology" still believes in the number-crunchers and their attempts
to get a fix on constantly changing social, human facts via surveys, polls
and highly undependable, even suspect, biased field studies.
"Old numerical analysts never die, they just get disarrayed. " - graffitti on
bathroom of the graduate studies room
czHANg, happy-go-lucky exile from Sociology & Mass Communications
double-major studies