Quote:What do you think is the primary reason that normal science is so different from social and political thought?
One of the differences is that you can violate something claimed to be true in the socio-political world without necessarily having reality contradict you. For example, if you deny the claim that "Murder is wrong" (something that is frequently believed to be true) and put this denial into practice, your experiences of reality will not necessarily contradict you (until you come across someone who believes otherwise and has enough power to override your beliefs, of course). On the other hand, someone who violates something claimed to be scientifically true will often find that reality can contradict this. If you deny the claim that "Carbon monoxide is harmful to humans" and put this denial into practice, you will find that reality will not support your view.
Which is not to say that claims about society or politics are not subject to verification, or at least substantiation. It means that these claims need to be measured against the experience of many, not just the experience of the person making the claim. It goes without saying that society is a collection of people, so it isn't enough to make a claim about society based on one's own personal experiences. Such claims need to be measured against the experiences of as many people as your methods of observation will allow. A lot of ludicrous claims about society have been made when the claimer thought he or she was doing the latter but was actually doing the former--or worse, when the claimer does the former and automatically assumes it applies to the latter.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace