Talk:Social dynamics
| WikiProject Systems (Rated Start-Class) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||
| Systems rating: | Start Class | High importance | Field: Social systems theory | ||
 Archives |
|---|
[edit] History section needed
This section needs names, dates, books, main theories (+date), of those who developed this branch of study. Does anyone know any of these?--Sadi Carnot 14:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC) ergt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.146.75 (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
The article reads like an essay on someone's view of social dynamics. What it should be is an overview of what important authors or experts in the field have said. For example, a theory is presented of the applicability of transmission functions to society. It isn't a self-evident fact that these can be applied; therefore it should be stated who holds this theory, and where it has been presented. Similarly for other points in the article. GMcGath 00:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this a cult? Really? It sounds like a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.1.221 (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fact or Fiction?
I am no expert on this subject. I was looking for social dynamics at my city library today with no luck, so perused wikipedia. Despite my ignorance on the subject (I understood it to be about social interaction), I did receive a bachelor's in Sociology. As I remember, Sociology has little to do with natural science. There is plenty of math and systemics involved though (some might call it statistics). As far as being a "fence-straddler" of physics and philosophy, I am unable to grasp the connection. True, Social Theory has a deep philosophical vein. Where does Physics enter the equation though? If social dynamics is the next great thing in the evolution of Sociology, I am not convinced by this essay. The author might also want to edit his or her grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogday77 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
