It seems like your argument above is not dissimilar from that of self-proclaimed left scientists (e.g: Sokal) against pomo philosophers. This analysis can be used recursively. Just as Sokal did, the excesses of the revisionist side, rather than the central contentions of their argument, can be used to criticize/dismiss their point.
Let me try to avoid getting into the philosophy of science issues surrounding the use of terms such as "fact" and "narrative" (and the question of how understands "reality" sans a "narrative"). Instead: Left argument that the *analysis* of the *data* on black arrests points to a general bias. This is not "storytelling" (in the sense in which you use the word). You are lumping together those who analytically derive such criticism and those who assume apriori that any facts have to be interpreted per cherished views (stories), because their conclusions are the same.
You are wrong in thinking that I am upset about anything. I am not upset. I am trying to find friends here and learn what best I can do to contribute to the cause(s) of the left.
If you said to me that the bible is a bunch of poorly written fairy tales, we may have a good laugh about it and I may not object. If you were to say that to Mother Teresa (whom I continue to admire despite Hitchens) I would indeed say you are being aggressive. To begin with "poorly written" is a subjective judgement and its mention (relative to context) could be nothing more than a gratuitous insult.
> For somebody trained in social science, this is largely a rhetorical
> question. We all learn in Sociology 101 about the "breaching experiments"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaching_experiment
> and know that they evoke hostile reactions. We also learn that stock
> knowledge and folkways become a part of who people are and challenging that
> stock knowledge or folkways may become a personal threat. We also learn,
> but that comes later, maybe in a graduate program, about sociological
> intervention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Touraine about using these
> challenges to survey, and perhaps influence, social movements. So from that
> point of view, reactions to my postings are as expected - people feel
> threatened when their stories and received wisdom is being challenged,
> especially by someone from their own camp.
As I pointed out, your criticism, of what you consider received wisdom (which you have hardly demonstrated as consensus opinion here on LBO!), itself tends to older forms of received wisdom!
It is the very analytical impulse of my training (not really used much in my mundane profession ;-)) that motivates my attempt to break this loop of meta/psycho-criticism and ask that we look at the substantive issues! There are issues of deduction and burden of proof that need to be addressed and could lead to productive results.
I think that's my quota for today.
--ravi
-- If you wish to contact me, you will get my attention faster by substituting "r" for "listmail" in my email address. Thank you!