I think this is the point I made earlier. The 'academic boundaries' Sociology works within limits its influence and its ability to act for the betterment of society. I don't think I'm using a narrow definition of sociology particularly. I am trying to make a case that the socio-political be at the centre of Sociology because the political realm is running on belief and not evidence. If Sociology cannot have an impact in the area of public policy then, as I've said, I think one can claim with some assurance that it is mostly useless - interesting I'll grant you, but mostly useless nonetheless.

The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better

The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better
Author(s) Richard Wilkinson, Kate Pickett
Subject(s) Socio-economics
Publisher Allen Lane
Publication date 5 March 2009
ISBN 978-0141032368

The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better[1] is a book by Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett,[2] published in 2009. The book is published in the US by Bloomsbury Press (December, 2009) with the new sub-title: "why greater equality makes societies stronger".[3] It was then published in a paperback second edition(UK) in November 2010 with the subtitle, “Why Equality is Better for Everyone”.[4]

The book argues that there are "pernicious effects that inequality has on societies: eroding trust, increasing anxiety and illness, (and) encouraging excessive consumption".[5] It claims that for each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal rich countries.[1] The book contains graphs that are available online.[6]

In 2010 the authors published responses to questions about their analysis on the Equality Trust website.[7] As of December 2010, the book had sold more than 100,000 copies.[8]

Galilei wrote:Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so.

Spearthrower wrote:The thread seems to have died, but I had this in mind for quite some time while reading:

Galilei wrote:Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so.