What sort of evidence? This argument smells a bit circular. Sociologists know more about society because they're Sociologists? The entire field appears to be little more than a collection of fallacies in action. People ignorant of the conclusions of sociologists would likely intuit their way to better outcomes.

> The entire field appears to be little more than a collection of fallacies in action

It "appears" this way only to someone who is completely uninterested in anything more than a cursory look. After getting my bachelor's degree in mathematics, I went to grad school to study history (which entails studying some sociology), and I can tell you first hand that it is no such thing. Even a shallow overview of the social sciences and the rigorous methodologies they employ will convince you of that. Obviously, those are not exact sciences, and social researchers are well aware of that. But the rigor of their methods is not much different from those employed in, say, medicine. Does every social science result deserve the same degree of epistemological confidence as a mathematical theorem or a physics experiment? Of course not! Are there false or even ridiculous "results"? Certainly, although the field as a whole eventually rejects them. But it is far, far, more rigorous and valid than the beliefs of people based on personal observation and gut feeling. And I hope this is obvious: even an ancient Greek who looked up at the skies and took notes of stars' positions but knew nothing about gravity or Copernicus, knew more about astronomy that a person who isn't even interested in studying the skies and recording observations, regardless of how incomplete the Greek's knowledge was.

astrologists and homeopaths would say that, as well

The difference is that believers in homeopathy don't employ anything resembling the scientific method, and there's plenty of evidence against its validity. Social researchers absolutely do use the scientific method, and you don't have any evidence against the validity of their results (obviously, some are wrong -- just as in medicine -- but the field as a whole is serious and as rigorous as possible).

Just as I was preparing to answer your comment about physicists, you edited it. But wow, is this really your argument - "disprove the results or they are considered valid"? Ever heard of Russel's teapot?

Using the method is nice, but let me know when they learn to reliably predict anything, such as election outcomes.

And you let me know when mathematicians come up with ways to predict intractable processes. Sadly, dynamical systems are subject to similar undecidability and intractibility results as those affecting computer science. Biologists can't predict specific evolutionary adaptations, either, but that doesn't mean they don't understand the mechanics of evolution. Tracing the cause of a bug is much easier than predicting program behavior, but the fact that we can't predict a program's behavior doesn't mean that computer scientists don't understand the principles of computation. Intractable processes in general can be explained in retrospect, but not predicted.

I'm not saying you should consider every social research result valid, but you cannot dismiss a discipline that employs rigorous observation and the scientific method by employing nothing of even remotely similar rigor. The burden of proof is on social researchers, but they have carried it as much as mathematically possible at present. What you cannot do is ignore the evidence by closing your eyes and saying it doesn't exist, or by picking bad apples as example. It's like an evolution denier saying that evolution is bogus because there are no fossils or whatever, and citing as evidence some cases of fake fossils.

The difference is, when real scientists say they know, they will tell you p-values and usually they can reliably predict things. And when they don't know something, they usually say so.

Contrast that with loud aggressive types who will call someone racist and demand that we agree unequivocally, because they know better. That is, until someone higher in their pecking order comes up with even more ridiculous redefinition of dictionary words.

> The difference is, when real scientists say they know, they will tell you p-values and usually they can reliably predict things. And when they don't know something, they usually say so.

In that case, social scientists are real scientists. I don't think you've been reading social science. Social science papers in some disciplines are often filled with so many p-values that they come out of your nose. In fact, I think you have a grudge against something that you have no idea what it really is.

> Contrast that with loud aggressive types who will call someone racist and demand that we agree unequivocally, because they know better. That is, until someone higher in their pecking order comes up with even more ridiculous redefinition of dictionary words.

Again, I think you're ranting against windmills here, but I don't know how you decide how ridiculous definitions are. Scientists change definitions rather regularly as they learn more about the subject. Are you studying society? What qualifies you to judge academic definitions of academic terms? The fact that energy has been a "dictionary word" centuries before physicists have "redefined" it does not make their definition ridiculous.

Academics don't demand that you agree to call someone racist. They have a very clear definition of racism, and they tell you when something matches that definition. Your agreement is irrelevant. Choosing to use a different definition is your prerogative, but it is also irrelevant.