No. I do. I have to or, rather, feel it's my obligation to know all the various positions sociologists take on the question, "is sociology a science?" Just as I had to take a position on methodological debates in the discipline, the question of the status of the individual in various social theoretical paradigms (!!!!), and so forth. I had to rehearse all those arguments, get inside them, understand where the position I ultimately sided with was found wanting by my critics.
I think that's good scholarship. I expect others to follow suit.
I think that, if one wishes to have an opinion on what takes place in other disciplines, it sort of obligates you to understand them. E.g., I have my prejudices against "cultural studies" but I wouldn't for a minute presume to make such incredibly simplistic criticisms about it unless I gave that area of study a reasonable hearing, a sympathetic hearing. Immanent critque, not external critique. It makes your position even stronger, not weaker. (aren't you a lawyer?)
I don't see NC doing that.
>Dave
>
> > Whenever I read him on this topic, I'm disappointed.
> > I know that there's no imperative for a man in his
>field to understand the complexity of the arguments
>about science, theory, and the philosophy of science
>as they stand in other fields. yet, I still expect
>more from him.> Kelley
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
>http://companion.yahoo.com/
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk