"This" being functionalism.
As an undergraduate, I was an economics and sociology double major. It was a valuable educational experience. I was always surprised I was one of the few that did that. My sociology advisor, who served on my thesis committee, said she had never known of a sociology professor to sit on an economics student's thesis committee.
And they all hated functionalism.
And probably for much the same reasons that Murphy elaborated on, I always thought that functionalism not only seemed right, but it was damned near tautological in most cases where it applied. In our theory class, the response to functionalism was always conflict theory (that's Marxian social theory with a more palatable name). Conflict theory is quite good sociology too. On one occassion I remember explicitly pointing out how one conflict or another actually served a fairly obvious function in society (aside from the interests of the two sides, of course). I forget what the example was now, but needless to say it didn't go over well - and it went over less well with my classmates than my professor.
The problem, I think, is that sociologists can have a bad habit of turning things into what Krugman has called a "morality play". Economics is not a morality play. Extending that, human social experience is not a morality play. We can have value judgements about the way things are, but that's a different question entirely.