How to do Social Science 1.

Cultural relativism is in essence, the view that all cultures have equal inherent value for the societies in which they are in. Now this is demonstrably a bad argument for several reasons, namely there are things that are just wrong, and shouldn't be practiced. For example anything that would violate human rights can be considered morally wrong. This helps to highlight an important issue however. Namely we live in the societies we study and comment on. Americans talk about American politics because they see the world through the lens of being an American, and can make important insights on the political system in the U.S..

This matters when we talk about other countries or different cultures. How can an American truly talk about another culture if they haven't experienced it? This matters because behaviors seen in American culture may not be there in other cultures, or behaviors considered wrong may be practiced in other cultures. Hence why social scientists need to be careful of any ethnocentric tendencies. If a person can't separate ethnocentrism from their analysis, then we can't have political science at all, possibly even within one country when take to its extreme limit.

How then do people separate the two? How can a person make claims about the social world they live in, and still be separate enough to make scientific claims?

I'm thinking about making method and methodology questions in the social sciences into a pet project of mine. Do you like this format, would you like to see more or different topics? Let me know below. Anyways, thanks for reading this far. Have a virtual potato.

 

Interesting OP though I'm not sure I get the point. Nice change for the incessant political drivel however.

 

human rights are subjective to the perceptions of the individual or group...
who's to say which culture is correct, proper, or righteous... simply imposing our beliefs onto others doesnt make our beliefs right...

true, americans have pushed their beliefs upon others, the entire globe in fact...

that said, i prefer the american version over all others, especially the eu & scandinavia...

 

Can't say I see your point- or question.
Cultures aren't quite science in the first place, unless you think of them as psychologically driven phenomenons, which could be a considered a sort of science study. But cultures are a the product of individuals thinking in parallel, which is something constantly in flux. There is a base, a foundation behind everything we see, think and do- and the base values in that foundation make the variables in what we perceive and what we think about what we perceive. There is no limit to the degree of distortion possible. This foundation that controls perception and reaction even before thought and logic. It is hardly acknowledged, usually dismissed, and only marginally understood by those professionals who do accept it's existence, yet it is the keystone to everything that goes on in our minds. To understand cultures and the variables they take, one has to understand how minds work- and I believe most scientists do not. I believe most psychologists and psychiatrists do not. It's human nature to grossly over-complicate things, and the keystone elements that control everything are buried under all the peripheral and conscious observations that we assume actually matter- we aren't even aware of them.

If one looks at a species such as dolphins, you see a culture in harmony, that allows independence while being part of a close-knit, cooperative and social community. It's consistent, and beneficial to all. You can find that in most of nature- until you get to humans. The animals know how their world works; know who they are and how they fit. We do not, so we fumble and stumble indefinitely..... we are an extremely unstable unpredictable species, and often extremely illogical. Our cultures, in the real time of nature- are all temporary variables in the attempts to find ourselves. Fact is, we understand your potato far better than we understand ourselves. Probably be the first species in history to be totally responsible for our own extinction. No short-term answer- if we survive another million years, we may get a handle on it.

 

That's the point. It's not political in nature. It's just talking about how we talk about politics in the first place as a science. I want to see if I can help educate people on how to do political science.

Then is that the case, how can we make any sort of meaningful claims about humans when we're blinded by culture?

The behavior of humans can be quantifiable though, and that's the point I'm going for. We might not like what we're doing, but at the very least we can understand it and try to put words to paper. From what I'm understanding of your answer, psychology doesn't work because the brain is too complex. Am I right in this regard?

 

Interesting. I completely agree with your premises.

Difficult subject, but I think your project is worthwhile.

 

Thanks, I hope it works out in the long run.

 

No- you are not. Psychology doesn't work well at this, but the reason is that the process required is outside their direct control.
It's not like surgery where the patient is out, and the doctor can cut out what is wrong. More like trying to convince the patient to operate on themselves- and it's brain surgery.

The brain is of course complex, lets say in a similar way that your computer is complex. It operates on levels of programming. At the very base of it all, there is a consistent set of rules that define process, and some consistent values that are always the same. For example, 2 plus 2 is always four, not a variable. What is commonly known as a bios for example affects the direction and expression of everything going through the computer. On top of the consistent basics which are identical in all computers, we stack the variables we call programming. The fundamental operations are consistent, the programs we add are infinitely variable. You may have heard the saying, "Garbage in- garbage out". Some relativity to how we think in that, too.

The human brain has a subconscious- and in that is like a base level programming, that assuming no birth defects- begins constructing a kind of "BIOS" even before birth. Impressions, rather than spoken teaching, establish most of its content. Like the bios in the computer- it's invisible, you don't talk to it, may not know it's there, and those who do rarely understand anything it does. However, it lays down the rules for the way your conscious brain can think. It works much like a set of tools- let's say a scale, a yardstick, a level. Everything you think, every option you can see when you look at a problem- is only visible IF it is compatible with what that subconscious bios of the brain dictates. Everything. When people talk about thinking outside the box- they are still inside this box. You make the conscious and variable decisions of your life within the limits of the options that the fundamental principles of your subconscious dictates. The difference between people and computers is that those fundamental principles are inconsistent between people- big-time. 2 plus 2 is not always four. It's like our yardsticks were all different in lengths, but we all think ours is 36" long. Imagine the conflict that would create.

Thus- two people with yardsticks that are calibrated differently look at exactly the same issue- and see different things. Both are sure they are right, but can't see beyond their own limits. Now there are fundamental principles that will always produce the correct capacities in our thinking, which allows a person fortunate enough to have them full control of life and the ability to see all the options and the viability of those options. So some people do very well and navigate life easily, while others are lost all their lives. Some people feel like life is a stuck record, that no matter what they do - they will fail. The flaws in their fundamental principles may allow nothing else. Others have no such limits.
The people are pretty much the same- but the fundamental principles controlling their mental processes are not.

This is a little bit like a disease, where an underlying situation inside causes a multitude of symptoms or malfunctions on the outside- which is what we see and experience, though we never see the disease source directly. If we treat the symptoms, we have temporary relief- but no change in the overall health of the body, and symptoms keep coming back. On the other hand, if we can cure the underlying disease- all the symptoms disappear automatically and permanently.

Most conflicts in life are symptoms of problems on that fundamental level. IF a person is able to correct the fundamental principles the sub-conscious operates on- everything in life changes, comfortably, correctly- and fast. Unfortunately, re-programming that part of our brains, correcting things set down wrong in the first place, is extremely hard for people to do and takes a great deal of courage. It is however, possible. I used to teach this, and know it because I have done it. I am, to say the least- very fortunate.

There are only three fundamental principles in your foundation, and I can write the correct versions of them on a business card. I think of them as parts of a puzzle- that provided you can see them, clearly fit together and make the picture that explains how life works. However, the variables that result from our typically faulty principles are unlimited. That is where the complexity is- it is the garbage that accumulates all your life and keeps us from being able to see that the picture. The real job is identifying that garbage, and throwing it out.

 

I'm going to ramble on here about the inherent divisiveness between humans for myriad reasons ranging from location to ethnicity to climate to religion to education to military to politics, etc. And IMO why we have this divisiveness is rooted in the tribalism of establishing territorial borders, with each society within each bordered area evolving separately and differently. For example, in the contiguous US we have 48 states, which today are now all culturally 'labeled' blue or red, Dem or Rep, rich or poor, religious or not, educated or not, etc. and over time these perceived 'labels' are digested as reality. I certainly know this first-hand being born and living in California where we hear/read the myriad BS pointed our way. In fact, for the ignorant who make these presumptions about CA when one lives in CA this state is 'culturally' divided the same as the US and the world. One location is blue, another location is red, one location is poor, another wealthy, some are religious and some are not, etc...basically the same diversity we will find at the US level and the world level. Ignoring CA now, when humans are thrust into their local cultures, this becomes their comfort zone, and outsiders challenge their positions, and some get along, some tolerate, and some fight. Millions of people through history have died due to fighting! How often are these fights about someone wanting food...never!! They are about the perceived cultural differences between bordered and labeled areas. This is where righteousness rears it ugly head! One group believes they can tell other groups how to manage their lives? For example, and few can comprehend this, but how is Christianity any better or worse than Islam? Everyone reading this last question, if they can't understand that both religions are entitled to the same rights on this Earth, this explains righteousness and tribalism and the negative effects of borders and labels...

 

I think a culture should be measured by the general wellbeing of those who live in it. In the last 30 years Liberalism have tried to convince us that all cultures are equal and they most certainly are not.

For example a culture that chops their children into pieces for medicine and rape its women as a precursor to marriage are in my opinion most certainly not contributing to the wellbeing of those who live in it, and therefore are not equal to a society where children and woman are safe from such "cultural" acts. It is ludicrous to consider someone who culturally partake in these things to be equal to someone who do not.

 

I don't know what you mean by "liberalism has tried to convince us...". It is exactly the contrary. Progressives have always been the ones standing against moral relativism and for the defense of universal human rights. On this forum I have fought this fight many times. Cultural relativism is more prevalent on the right, right now.

 

Nonsense, I've had arguments with people on this forum, liberals who think they are and egotistically call themselves progressive, telling me everyone is the same.

We were discussing the African problem, the collapse of an entire industrialised economy when one culture is removed from power and replaced with a completely different culture. In this case it was a capitalist civilization building culture (who built industry) replaced with communist nomadic (however they also partake in what I described in my previous post)

 

Being "the same" doesn't mean that everybody acts the same from a moral standpoint.

However, I admit Itoo have had discussions with liberals who support moral relativism. But, I've found only a minority. In general, the position of most progressives is support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an objective universal moral parameter. And the opposition to this has usually come from the right.

 

Again I disagree, on both points

1. liberals are not progressive, they just like to think they are
2. Liberal policies like open borders and multiculturalism is wiping out cultures....it is all about becoming same whereas conservative policies are about preserving culture.

imagine travelling around a world where everyone is the same... culture is such a rich and beautiful thing, when you find and experience one different to your own it is a privilege. Liberals are doing their utmost to destroy that.

 

David Landes (RIP), in his epic "Wealth and Poverty of Nations," eruditely and completely demolished cultural relativism. Due to corruption in gov-edu, the book won't get its due for decades likely, but it will become one of the classics of history. No, we wasn't the publisher of a RW blog, but from Harvard, old school when that university still had credibility. Nor is the book partisan... other than to multiculti hacks who hate it like vampires hate garlic. Highly recommended for anyone who wants to truly understand the impact of cultural factors on world history and the history of specific countries. Especially recommended for Westerners wanting a basic grasp of Chinese history. Also see Sowell's masterful work "Conquests and Cultures." Both books are accessible and plainly written, neither bogs down in jargon.

 

Ok. Then I have no idea who it is you refer to as "liberals"

 

I get what you're saying. So how do you examine other people critically? If at all you can?

 

Why do I feel like I read a piece of it? Whatever questions for later.

I don't see anyone truly defend cultural relativism. I think it's a pretty much settled subject in the sciences and philosophy. I think they defend it when it comes to normative claims, but I don't usually see it when it comes to meta claims. What does Landes and Sowell argue?

 

BTW

I still don't know who you are referring to by the term "liberals", but you contradict yourself. First you are against "multiculturalism", and they you express how beautiful multiculturalism is.

Weird.

 

Social science, and any field of study that has the word "science" in its name is usually a bogus science. Have fun with this project but don't take it too seriously.

 

I am reminded of a story a college professor once told me The story takes place during what is sometimes called the British Raj in colonial India.

A British Sargeant Major with a platoon of soldiers happens upon an indian funeral and they are about to fling the Dead man's young bride upon the funeral pyre, a practice called suttee. The Sargeant is to, to put it mildly, displeased and brings a screeching halt to the proceedings. One of the locals looks at him and says, "But Sahib, this is our custom in our country."

The Sargeant Major stares back at him and says, "Well the custom in my country is to hang stupid blighters who do such bloody stupid things."

One should note that the practice of the Suttee was outlawed by the Indian Constitution of 1948. That Constitution largely created by Ghandi appears at first reading to have a lot more to do with Ghandi Education in and English boarding school than it did with Indian customs several others of which were also outlawed.

 

I think that psychology, on a person to person basis is a bit dubious. However, I think that studies on populations can be quite illuminating and useful.

Efforts to establish democracies in places like the Middle East, Africa, and Russia have repeatedly come up short. It may be that the people have been so conditioned, over thousands of years, to accept an authoritarian ruler, and no real individual rights, that the people have difficulty imaging anything else, and do not know how to handle democracy.

Soviet Russia was supposed to be a democracy but quickly fell into a brutal dictatorship, much as the Czars who had preceded the communists. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was once again supposed to be a democracy but once again fell to the rule by a dictator.

It took France a couple of tries to get rid of their king and become a champion for democracy.

Democracy took hold in the US because there had been more than a hundred years of conditioning the population to accept it. Same with the rise of Trump. Right wing media has been priming the population to accept such a character, for close to 40 years.

 

more biased bs... libs are defacto progressives, because they need them to achieve their agendas, without which their numbers are way too low to achieve them on their own...

 

As a pseudo-science, I am not so sure that it is accurate to imply that social science produces actual legitimate scientific claims.