My concern was to defend the topic at hand. Trying to distinguish between different forms of economics and sociology would muddy the waters a great deal.
For sure, no doubt, there is highly defensible macroeconomic and sociological work done.
There does seem to be a boundary where sociology meets macroeconomics meets english literature meets arsty-psychology wherein a huge amount of highly speculative work is done. Work which seems, as far as its truth apt, mostly false.
I don't think this work properly belongs to any of those subjects and is really a kind of speculative blogging that certain academics like to do that happens to get published somewhere. However that also tends to get seen more often than their detailed work on interest rates in the 1970s.
Macroeconomists often can't run experiments, and some kinds of "macro-sociological" theories can't be tested either. That puts them in a fundamentally different epistemological class.
For sure, no doubt, there is highly defensible macroeconomic and sociological work done.
There does seem to be a boundary where sociology meets macroeconomics meets english literature meets arsty-psychology wherein a huge amount of highly speculative work is done. Work which seems, as far as its truth apt, mostly false.
I don't think this work properly belongs to any of those subjects and is really a kind of speculative blogging that certain academics like to do that happens to get published somewhere. However that also tends to get seen more often than their detailed work on interest rates in the 1970s.