Reddit reviews In Defence of History

> Most sociologists are critical of quantitative methods, but when it comes to qualitative research it is "deep" and "rich".

On the contrary, with the exception of some outliers (i.e. pro-quantitative Durkheim and Comte; pro-qualitative Oakley etc.) Sociologists tend to hold triangulation as the ideal regarding sociological research - quantitative and qualitative methods, in whichever proportion the sociologist in question prefers.

By all means, I have scarcely ever seen a Sociologist not cite statistics to back up their evidence, and rarely have I seen the evidence take the form of qualitative interviewing or open-ending opining. Maybe the theorists I've read differ from the ones that you have.

___

However, in theory, I agree with you - I'm no fan of postmodernism, myself, and for me, Foucault falls into the category of "pop sociology" - albeit, perhaps that is more of a testament to my opposition to whatever theory is in vogue at the time.

I have met people who have read only Foucault, concerned only with postmodernism, then claimed to have extensive sociological knowledge - I say, such claims do our field a disservice. When schools of thought are filled with such people, it can only be to their and our detriment.

I'm as much of a fan of complaining about the needlessly intricate and complex use of language as you are, and perhaps it is disguising a lack of theoretical points, but I think such a conclusion is a hasty judgement - if sociological postmodernism is really all make-believe, then Sociological criticisms will be quick to shoot it down, like it has been attempted in the historical realm.

However, for every Sokal Affair, there is a Schön Scandal, and perhaps the lesson here is simply that no academic is infallible, and there should be greater stringency in all fields as to not letting our standards slip. Postmodernism has flaws, but - as irritating as it is to attempt to give credence to such an irritating ideology - all schools-of-thought have flaws and criticisms attached to them; from Functionalism to Feminism (all sub-branches), Marxism to Interactionism.

The philosophy of science has already done plenty to show us that the natural sciences are just as fallible, additionally; if not more so, accounting for Kuhn's work on paradigms - innovation and radicalism leading to condemnation, with the refusal of new ideas, perspectives and interpretations that ultimately hinders and slows the progress of the natural sciences.

http://www.amazon.com/Defence-History-Richard-J-Evans/dp/1862073953/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299861496&sr=1-5

I find this to be an excellent paper that tries to debunk postmodern methodologies: http://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf

The philosopher Roger Scruton has written a whole book devoted to critiquing various postmodern thinkers: https://www.amazon.com/Fools-Frauds-Firebrands-Thinkers-Left/dp/1408187337/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1468857400&sr=8-1

For postmodernism's relation to the field of history, you could try this volume by Richard J. Evans: https://www.amazon.com/Defence-History-Richard-J-Evans/dp/1862073953/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

In its relation to science, you could try this book: https://www.amazon.com/Higher-Superstition-Academic-Quarrels-Science/dp/0801857074/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=