Can anyone be social and scientific at the same time?
If not, can a scientist ever understand a social being?
If not, then what are social sciences?
I don’t know, I just Moderate it!
j/k
Positivist sociologists attempt to emulate the natural sciences as a model for understanding society, and so define “science” in its stricter modern sense. Antipositivists, by contrast, use social critique or symbolic interpretation rather than raw empirical observation, and thus treat “science” in its broader, classical sense.
The second approach seems to me to be more ‘human’. Out of the first approach I only see torture chambers emerging. There was some sense in the old Aristoteleans, those who anthromorphized nature, and thereby laid the foundations for a psychology based on man - instead of on chemistry and electricity.
Science in terms of containg groups, understanding mass behaviour, etc - can they ever lead to anything desirable, if we look at it from a humanist point of view? Sure, as means to power they are great. But do they lead to a greater understanding of what man is? I don’t think so - just to an elaborate knowledge of weaknesses.
There are those who say that man can be understood in terms of weaknesses - poker players, for example, make use of this, as do generals and conmen. Then there are those who maintain that man is per definition a mystery to himself, and that psychology is the art of exploring this mystery. Not reducing it, keeping it vast and open. The former group corresponds to laws of containment, of bars on a cage. The latter to minimalist laws, laws as guidelines, as tools.
The real social science, is, so it seems to me, law.
I think that it is largely trying to apply quantitative terms to society.
Hence all of the statistics such as the census, graduation rates, median incomes…You also have political affiliations that come into play, how many Republicans are there in such and such an area, Democrats, Independents, and then of course there are other statistics that would help us figure out why that would be.
Social Sciences is mostly just Social Statistics, at least in my opinion.
Well that’s one aspect of it certainly - a very flat one - I think that a real social science would also be the study of the duality Rebublicans vs Democrats.
The American psyche seems to need these archetypical antagonists to endure in protecting it’s values. Of course (?) they are not really oppositions, but both sides of a coin, which is flipped once every four years, to dramatically emphasize the strengths and weaknesses (loss and gain) of both, and as such, of the concept America, to the real America i.e. its population.
Social science is an oxymoron. There’s no way for any definition of it to make sense without the bastardization of the idea of science itself. Pretty much considered a joke by really smart people, unfortunately it’s somehow captivated some kinda-smart people who would be doing much better work if they were helping dumb people understand real science instead of watering science down into some PC love fest where someone’s always the victim of someone else and the explanations are always saturated with ad-hocs and other instances of basic rules of logic being ignored.
I guess the fact that it’s mainly a stupid thing that idiots study, (not all of em are idiots, see above), so that they can be “trained” and get good jobs as social workers or some shit like that is also pretty repulsive. Especially when you consider that the whole idea behind it all might just be to both make people more sensitive to things that don’t even matter, and distract them from going after higher level information in their pursuits of knowledge.
Pitiful really.
A “football major”.
Ugh…I’ve disgusted myself just thinking about it.
As a social - scientific experiment I want to work out the consequences of a ten party system.
A population would be presented the choice between
Universalists
Action Party
Structuralist Collective
Mercy Platform
Justice First
Individualist/Humanists group
Artists lobby
Techocrats
Naturalists
and materialists.
The affilliations between all of them count twentytwo - because a duality is preserved, between Universalism and materialism. Within this duality there is a triplicity - centered around the Individualist/Humanist group, which is a collective of individuals who do not choose to be part of a party. Both non and neutral voters. The Materialist party stands outside of this triplicity, but is represented by the structuralist collective. Otherwise, the Materialists and the Individual group do not connect. Nature stands between them.
If we would choose to simplify, Materialists could be seen as analogous to Republicans, Universalists to Democrats, and the Individualist party simply as those people who don’t believe in the duality, or don’t care at all for any kind of system.
The affiliations are:
Universal/Action/Structure/Individual
Action/Universal/Structure/Individual/Mercy
Structure/Universal/Action/Individual/Justice
Mercy/Action/Individual/Justice/Art
Justice/Structure/Mercy/Individual/Technology
Individual/Universal/Action/Structure/Mercy/Justice/Art/Technology/Nature
Art/Mercy/Individual/Technology/Nature/Matter
Technology/Structure/Individual/Nature/Matter
Nature/Individual/Art/Technology/Matter
Matter/Art/Technology/Nature
Through (infra)structure, matter is represented to the Universal/Action/Individual/Justice chain. Individualism is not directly connected with or represented to matter. It must go via Art, Technology or Nature.
These are the conditions of the system. I would further argue for a fourfold division of the system into attributes of human involvement.
Actually there are some mistakes in the sequence of relations as I wrote them down. These are the correct sequences:
Universal/Action/Structure/Individual
Action/Universal/Structure/Mercy/Individual
Structure/Universal/Action/Justice/Individual
Mercy/Action/Justice/Individual/Art
Justice/Structure/Mercy/Individual/Technology
Individual/Universal/Action/Structure/Mercy/Justice/Art/Technology/Nature
Art/Mercy/Individual/Technology/Nature/Matter
Technology/Justice/Individual/Art/Nature/Matter
Nature/Individual/Art/Technology/Matter
Matter/Art/Technology/Nature
Yes, the entire concept ‘manager’ is born from it. It’s a modern insanity.
Heh heh. Yes, if you take that stuff to heart it will bring all kinds of misery on you. It’s like a plague. Yet I do not think that it is doomed as a science. There are just no axioms yet. Let’s try to solve that. I’ll give it a shot.
Axioms:
A human being is either a social being, or not.
A social being is either human or not.
When a human being is a social being, he is comparable to other social human beings.
When two comparable social human beings are in a room together, their behaviour adjusts to terms dictated by neither of them.
Axioms:
-A human being is either a social being, or not.
-A social being is either human or not.
-When a human being is a social being, he is comparable to other social human beings.
-When two comparable social human beings are in a room together, their behavior adjusts to terms dictated by neither of them.
At this point I need to insert an artifice. I will implement my 10-fold model of politics as the terms by which behavior is dictated when more than one social human beings are in a room. The next step is to formulate for all of the 10 points of identification a motivation.
Universal: unification
Action: To do whatever is necessary
Structure: To preserve and expand
Mercy: to give and to keep
Justice: to protect and to serve
Individual: to be and to assert
Art: To create what is desired
Technology: to enable
Nature: To grow and nurture
Matter: to master and be
The effect of these motives on each other determine what can happen in a social situation. It is essential to keep to the proper affiliations as they are listed in a post above. Unification, for example, does not directly relate to the create what is desired. It may seem a natural partner - but this is the assumption of interpretation, it is not an understanding of mechanism, which underlies the interpretation.
A proper path is: To unify - to do - to give - to create
Another proper path is: To unify - to preserve - to be - to create
If a creator is coupled with a unifier in a room, they will not find the means for their proper will to express itself.
If a creator is coupled with a technocrat, on the other hand, things will happen. Likewise with a Individualist and a naturalist. Not so with an action-party-member and a naturalist. They do not understand each other, they have to communicate through the Individualist, etc.
The next step is to describe the relations between the points of reference. These are the actual politics. I start, for logistic reasons, with the Humanist/Individualist. He connects to all but one, so a more or less comprehensive first set of relations may be identified.
Individual - Universal.
Natural identification with purpose.
Individual - Action.
Executive power. Authority over others by power to act.
Individual - Structure.
Understanding of limitations and possibilities. Self knowledge.
Individual - Mercy.
Self love. Capacity to distinguish rewarding experience from suffering.
Individual - Justice.
Self legislation. Capacity to eliminate.
Individual - Art. Relation: Self-undoing.
Capacity to create beyond function.
Individual - Technology.
Becoming function. Capacity to destroy self.
Individual - Nature.
Knowledge of need vs. desire. Capacity to sustain self.
Before I move on to the description of the affiliations outside of the Individual party, I want to find out if I can understand the eleven affiliation-triangles which can be made from of the relations I have already established.
Individual - Universal - Action
Power to act combined with purpose - auspicious potential to accomplish.
Individual - Universal - Structure
Purpose combined with knowledge of power and limitation - abstract power, capable of outlining course of action in great detail.
Individual - Structure - Action
Self knowledge combined with power to act. Asserting of individual. Does not necessarily lead to purpose, but will lead to iconic politics.
Individual - Mercy - Action
Power to act combined with self love - a benevolent force, course of action based on good conscience.
Individual - Structure - Justice
Knowledge of capacity and limitation combined with capacity to eliminate and legislate. Pure, effective politics. Power to alter government.
Individual - Mercy - Justice
Self love combined with self legislation - truly revolutionary individualism. Inspirational politics.
Individual - Mercy - Art
Self love combined with creating beyond self. Idealistic politics, lack of stability, counting on luck.
Individual - Justice - Technology
Capacity for self legislation combined with power. Transforming politics. Revolution of industry.
Individual - Art - Technology
Capacity for self undoing and loss of self in function. Politics of the machine.
Individual - Art - Nature
Transcending self combined with nurturing self. Universal care. Politics of compassion.
Individual - Technology - Nature
Power, function combined with nurturing and sustaining self. Scientific politics with the capacity to improve conditions for man.