Talk:Sociological naturalism

Untitled

The first sentence needs revision. It states that "christine passerelli is a flaming homo and evelina woljaksghajksh is pmsing all day every day." Can somebody please improve upon this? Thank you. Terry Brighton (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope nobody minds my minor rewording. Jmchen 03:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LoquaciousNika.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source of this entry: thefreedictionary.com. What to do?

A google search turns up mostly references in free sorts of publications - only a couple of passing uses of the term (that i saw) in sociological literature. The notion seems a valid one as it relates to early positivism in sociology.

The text of the first version of this article is the same as that on this page, including links selected: Sociological naturalism http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Sociological+naturalism

It seems possible that this was copied to WP from thefreedictionary.com, as the definition is referenced on multiple pages in the thefreedictionary.com and related publications.

Should this be rewritten with references or dropped? What to do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reswik (talk • contribs) 02:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not comprehensively expert on this topic, but I do work and teach in the areas of both classic and contemporary sociolgical theories and I'm not at all sure that 'sociological naturalism' is a significant concept. Notice that the definition given on this page conflates naturalism with positivism and then throws in the conceptually distinct claim that social phenomena should be studied "in their natural setting". No citations are given. I revised a really egregious mispresentation of contemporary sociology, but the page is still problematic. Could someone who knows about this idea give the page a rewrite? Or else it should go entirely. Christopher Powell (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is to be kept, the work of actor-network theorists and others who demonstrate the socially constructed quality of the nature/society distinction should be discussed. Christopher Powell (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

The article currently says:

In modern sociology, naturalism has been replaced by antinaturalism, as most sociologists agreed that the social world, based on human actions, differs from the natural world, governed by laws of physics.

Really? Sociologists think that humans aren't governed by the laws of physics? I highly doubt this. 86.143.239.106 (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. This is an incorrect claim and I'll correct it immediately. Christopher Powell (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into sociological positivism

This article is unreferenced, a bit of a mess, and although the concept of naturalism is discussed in sociology in discussions over the scientific method, I'm not really convinced 'sociological naturalism' forms a coherent or official term. Bearing in mind the sociological positivism article needs so much work as it is, I'd recommend any decent nuggets from this article be merged into that, and this replaced with a redirect --Tomsega (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]