I wonder if sociology students are upset when creationists are forced to listen to the evolution theory in government supported classes or are confronted with a belief they disagree with in museums on the National Mall that spout evolution as fact?
Would they be upset? No, because that would mean that they would have to believe the rubes have a belief different than theirs, but just as viable. That is something they only will not do, but they will also openly laugh at such an idea. They are that sure that they are correct that it allows them to mock, belittle, laugh at and get articles so full of crock as the one below published about their publishing a "scientific" paper base on ethnographyy. Ethnography, a subjective narrative based on one's bias, is considered a scientific research by those that agree with its findings. An example might be, "Jews act badly, in my opinion, towards Palestinians, ergo my bias against Jews and for Palestinians is correct."
When sociology students visit Creation Museum
A professor of sociology led a field trip through Kentucky's Creation Museum, a fundamentalist Christian facility. The professor found that non-fundamentalists felt uncomfortable there. Museum officials say they've received death threats and the site sometimes draws anti-Creationist protesters.
Barton combined hours of observation and analysis of museum materials into an ethnography, a detailed narrative about a place and its culture that is often used in sociology. Unlike other research methods, the ethnography does not strive for impartiality; rather, the researchers recognize and reflect on their own reactions to what they see. (read the entire article)
“Politically acceptable” is only acceptable to one side and they do not pray to God to be right.
