TEACHSOC: Re: Is sociology asleep at the switch

[klausner]

I don't know of any sociologist who claims that the "mind" is a "real thing"...something that is tangible. Rather, it is an epiphenomenon of the brain. Mead viewed both "mind" and "self " as processes. I would hope that none of us commit the fallacy of misplaced concreteness . Del seems to *assume* such is the case. Del Thomas Ph. D. wrote: Over the last several months I have been trying to test the extent to witch sociology is faith based rather than science based. The questions have ranged fro interest in  testing theory, what are the breakthroughs  in sociology as well as the extent to which there is evidence of adapting over adopting.  There was an article that suggested that sociology was a practice.  However, based on my many years in practice, a practice would be expected to have breakthroughs, and also do testing of  theories. Much of our time is spent rehashing what has been adopted.  We continue to use instructional materials that are untested and concepts such as race and the (isolated) nuclear family that are primitive and not measurable.  At the same time I have seen little interest in the use of landscan on the data from fMRI and PET scans that show repeatedly that human thinking is shaped by the definition of the situation. Perhaps the most discouraging is the continued use of the term mind as if it were a real thing when all of the data informs us that the the brain is Mead's mind.  His work could be called Brain, situation and society.  In staking out social behavior sociology has started the illumination of what may be the most important breakthrough in centuries.  But that has been a while. Can we locate the switch? Do we care?  Or is faith enough? Del