I agree absolutely - though with pessimism about anything that might be achieved in the short term. Understanding is the key: understanding of what makes people tick and what makes society work. But I think such knowledge ought to be more than just a tool to help those who try to run things secure a more peaceful and equitable world. I think the stuff of social sciences needs to inform the education of all individuals. Were we to get a better understanding of our psychology, group behaviour,the other forces of society that impinge on us, and a knowledge of history crusades, empires, power grabbing etc etc, we as individuals might begin to contribute more effectively to peace, optimal development for all, and respect and stewardship for all life. But we are a long way off such knowledge and motivation.

I'm surprised this article hasn't elicited the usual tidal wave of response to such a topic.
I found it to be an interesting and well reasoned article, attempting to reach the facts and to push past the knee-jerks of "blame the religion" or "Islam vs the West" arguments that seem to dominate the floor around here. Very refreshing.

It is so interesting that the most interesting times in history, for the historian, is when religion gave way to reason.

St Thomas Aquinas thus stands as the most progressive as well as the most philosophical of all famous Christians. In order to lift Christianity out of the Dark Ages, he stooped to listen to a rather ratbag French padre, Peter Lombard, who had lowered himself further to attend an Islamic college in Moorish Spain to which all religions had been invited.

Abelard travelled all over Christian Europe, with a message entitled "The Search for Enquiry", Aquinas years later writing a whole volume on it.

As with Immanuel Kant hundreds of years later, Aquinas tried almost desperately to virtually use Socratic reasoning to prove there is a true God, or rather to prove we all need a God to believe in. Or maybe to lean on like a father.

The very fact that Aquinas helped to liberalise Christianity, or the allowance to reason about God besides a reliance on pure faith, first brought on the free thought that led to the Rennaissance.

From the Rennaissance grew the Age of Reason, then to the Age of Enlightenment, and where we find ouselves now, many of us in today's troubled world preferring to go back to the Greeks, where the thoughts about reasoning and science we are taught, first came from, the Greek philosophers.

Greek reasoning still cannot replace that wonderful protective and compassionate love that Jesus brought to our world, however

As a social scientist and convinced empiricist, I found this article a timely reminder of what we should be doing but are not. With respect to sociology in particular, many university departments have become little more than sheltered workshops for postmodernist and deconstructionist "theorists" who have no time to dirty their hands with research and the analysis of results, let alone looking at hard areas of study - poverty, gambling, drinking, social alienation (the list is endless) or shock horror, considering longitudinal studies.

There are honorable exceptions but most sociologists I know only conduct research when money can be obtained - much of their time is spent picking their noses from inside.

You are so right, Perikles. Probably the real depth of social science is better understood in maturity. As a retired cockie, did social science besides golf during long retirement. Did time in Sri-Lanka doing Third World problems from a social science angle near the end of the Cold War.

Us few retirees studying over there with the younger ones, however, seemed to cotton on more quickly to Sri-Lanka's post colonial problems than the younger ones, who seemed to be mostly over there for an adventure, especially as being non-aligned, there was a Soviet cruiser anchored out from Colombo much of the time, with our female students fraternising a bit with the Soviet sailors.

I guess you have read the book by Geoffrey Searle called From Deserts the Prophets Come. Still got the book and as I had originally left school before finishing state school to drive a wagon team, being a crank for trying to solve problems, probably helped me years later to get 93 out of a 100 in the thesis I wrote on Sri-Lankan history and politics.

Did joke a bit later about the bush being from where the real thinkers come from. Not the best golfers however, love the game but could never really master it.

PS - Wish the Pomm's could make the cricket more interesting.

Cheers, mate,

George C - WA

Really a very refreshing article about a new, positive perception and self-conception of sociology! The article is disclosing the need of more co-operation between the sciences, in this case with the psychology, and particularly the mass psychology. If social science wants to play a part making extreme forms of violence of today intelligible, it must resort more to psychological patterns and researches, and, of course, to history. That means, the "invention" of a new sociology should be an overlapping, comprehensive science founded and led by allround and crossover scientists.
However, the new type of sociology is claiming also to become creative respectively to "encourage the development of social creativity". Well said, but caution! If sociology considers its key task in constructing and substaining images of hope it could turn out in a self-deceit. But yet, hoping and wishing can help.