In this article, about a sociologist's predictions for the future, I found this claim:

The sociology professor suggested that tuberculosis could merge with AIDS to form a deadlier virus

Now, given that tuberculosis is a bacterial disease, I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. But maybe a non-sociologist like me can't understand these things.

It's bullshit.

 

It's also the sort of thing that's why those of us in the *real* sciences don't respect sociology.

While it is obviously true (to us, at least) that TB and HIV do not "merge", there is a substantial problem with co-infection. I'm guessing he heard somebody discussing the March 2009 issue of Lancet Infectious Disease, e.g.,

• A. Zumla et al., Lancet Infect Dis (2009) 9(3):197-202 "Reflections on the White Plague"
  
• M.J. Reid and N.S. Shah, Lancet Infect Dis (2009) 9(3):173-84 "Approaches to tuberculosis screening and diagnosis in people with HIV in resource-limited settings"
  

It's bullshit.

 

It's also the sort of thing that's why those of us in the *real* sciences don't respect sociology.

Those of us in the *real* sciences also don't base conclusions on inadequate evidence or hearsay.

 

It was not a direct quote. It reads "The sociology professor suggested that tuberculosis could merge with AIDS to form a deadlier virus, and that the Russian mafia might sell a nuclear bomb to any number of groups that want to harm us."

 

Knowing the media (I have been a victim of them myself), I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was the reporter's idea of what he thought the guy meant, rather than what he actually said. Of course, I might be wrong, but so might you. The point is, we don't know.

While the media can distort things, why are they even asking a sociologist about infectious diseases at all? Or why is he even saying anything about them?

 

And honestly, there are prior patterns of behavior that lead me to treat such reports as more probable than otherwise.

Social sciences appear to be where the breakthroughs are happening.

Social sciences appear to be where the breakthroughs are happening.

 

Since when? In fact, when have they ever had any breakthrough at all, or contributed anything useful? Maybe a drip and drop here and there, but nothing to compare to electronics, plastic or vaccines.

It's bullshit.

 

It's also the sort of thing that's why those of us in the *real* sciences don't respect sociology.

 

More likely a misquote; journalists will frequently mess up everything any scientist says. TB and HIV co-infections are a serious problem, and most likely he was referring to the difficulty of treating TB in AIDS patients resulting in more drug resistant TB. Alternately, TB is particularly deadly to people with compromised immune systems.

http://www.cdc.gov/HIV/resources/factsheets/hivtb.htm

I would also give the benefit of doubt here (and assume the journalist messed up).

A google search on Garry Potter reveals he is a misanthropic post-postmodernist.

 

I'm with Mokele.

A google search on Garry Potter reveals he is a misanthropic post-postmodernist.

 

He's just jealous because his dorky brother got to fight evil wizards, and all he got to do was teach sociology.

While the media can distort things, why are they even asking a sociologist about infectious diseases at all? Or why is he even saying anything about them?

a) Because they're the media, and it's their job to sell stuff, and loud, scary stuff sells where scientific truth is less popular. b) I have no idea.

 

And honestly, there are prior patterns of behavior that lead me to treat such reports as more probable than otherwise.

I don't disagree with you. I don't have any particular sympathy with sociology(ists), which is a bit of a 'non-job' as far as I know, but I have much less for the media bacause they do have a role and more often than not, they abuse it deliberately because selling copy trumps truth.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Since when? In fact, when have they ever had any breakthrough at all, or contributed anything useful? Maybe a drip and drop here and there, but nothing to compare to electronics, plastic or vaccines.

What are you classing as social sciences?

What are you classing as social sciences?

 

Pretty much everything outside of the basic natural sciences. Psych gets in as natural because for much of it, there's controlled experimentation (rats pulling levers, subjecting freshmen to weird tests, etc).

Just checking

Modern IQ ranges for various occupations

 

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx

 

There's your problem.

Since when? In fact, when have they ever had any breakthrough at all, or contributed anything useful? Maybe a drip and drop here and there, but nothing to compare to electronics, plastic or vaccines.

 

Haha, I was being sarcastic.