Armed Correlations

[ellisonz]

7. What I was taught in my sociology courses was that while "is causation" is frowned upon

That a statement such as "the quantitative analysis indicates that the statistical significance of the correlations leads us to conclude that the probability that the relationship is causal is strong." As a history major, I of course found this reluctance of sociologists to assign specific and conclusive explanations for events to be rather chickenshit. In short, I understand why they're reluctant make a more conclusive statement but as the OP article notes in regard to the recent JAMA study, it "ends with the orthodox injunction that the study could not alone determine cause-and-effect relationships, and that further studies are needed."

I have not read that study, but in general, I think this failure to them further explore under what conditions cause-and-effect relationships could be determined or what "further studies" are needed lends itself to misinterpretation. IMHO sociology doesn't do a good job of exploring and relating to its limits, whereas historians are going to more actively consider the probability that say perhaps a document might be uncovered that would disprove an argument based on the review of archival materials. Rare is the discovery of any new finding that would disprove or cause substantial reconsideration of a thesis. As someone with a degree in history, my thesis on this topic might be something like: "The history of gun ownership in modern time strongly illustrates the point that increasing small arms proliferation causes an increasing prevalence of small arms violence in society."

It's a simple and self-evident argument and doesn't lend itself to ready disabuse like sociologists are subject to, and I say this being readily aware of the bifurcated nature of sociologists between those who lean toward quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis. This is not to say that history isn't subject to abuse, I'm just saying that for lay purposes sociological explanation is more confusing to the average layman than historical explanation, and that by itself is an interesting question. I would speculate that what convinces is the mode of presentation of the "self-evident" argument that the OP author considers: "Common sense confirms what social science correlates. The United States, after all, is hardly the only rich country in the world with laws. American insularity and the ignorance of others is powerful, but it need not be quite so absolute."

I should probably bite my tongue now.