( Kapital-i, in 'I, myself', now spels Il as in isle or aisle.
Leter y spels ryd for reed or read and partys for parties.
Leter w spels swn for soon. )
Links to sektions:
'Siens' has ment mainly the achyvments and methods of natural siens. From the seventynth sentury, its model bekaim mekaniks, the siens of the laws of motion. Thys fw jeneral laws wer not ryly question'd and qualify'd, til the turn of the twentieth sentury.
Dyply under the saim influens, many pionyrs of social siens also try'd to explain ther studys in terms of a fw gIding principls. This esthetik pasion of the theorist explains much of the charm of siens for that kind of sientist. It was sot to jeneralis history from komparabl chains of individual events. This is the notion that history repyts itself.
The lament, 'WI do we never lern anything from history?, implIs we mak the saim mistaks, that kud hav byn avoided by breking from that harmful patern.
But som historians and filosofers, notably German skolars, kontinud to
stres the importans of unyk sirkumstanses, as against universal faktors,
in social siens, as kompar'd to natural siens. Formost was Imanuel
Kant, woken from his 'dogmatik slumbers' by David Hume.
Hume said it was ilojikal to deriv ethiks from siens: yu can't
deriv an 'ot' from an 'is'.
This is tru but irelevant. Kant's unifying anser, to Hume's dualism, is folow'd hyr. Kant's distinktion, betwyn the natural sienses and 'the moral sienses' or social scienses, is not fundamental, but betwyn syking mor or les universal or individual nolej, respektivly.
NIntynth sentury biolojy lent som kredens to the importans of partikular nolej. As lIf evolvs, it bekoms mor specialis'd. Diferenses betwyn human beings ar most signifikant of al.
Natural siens itself has bekom natural history, as R G Collingwood said was hapening. The history or tru story of the univers is of an inkrysingly individual kreation, perhaps uon of many individual kreations in a multivers. Fysikal laws, uons thot universal, ar begining to lwk lIk chans diverjenses betwyn this univers and posibly other mor or les related individual universes.
By definition, the univers is uon, a houl and not a part that kud be akted upon by som other part. Ther is nothing to determin a univers but itself. Therfor, the univers implIs its own frydom or self-determination. LIkwIs, the univers is individual, in the sens of 'not to be divided'. It is no les than its houl self. The univers has the frydom of the individual.
On balans, human individuals shud hav mor frydom in sosiety. This mIt also be tru of the multivers as a sosiety of universes.
The lojik of a univers being a fry ajent also implIs an inform'd
intelijens. The fryest chois nos al the choises to mak: universal
nolej is of individual frydom.
Yoga or the unitive lIf, hws goal is liberation from self ( or
perhaps selfishnes ) likens independens to uones (or 'kaivalya') of God.
Sir James Jeans remark'd that the univers sym'd les lIk a greit macyn
and mor lIk a greit thot.
The deduktiv model of siens konklusivly explains an okurens, in terms of a universal prinsipl that may be said to aplI if sertain partikular konditions ar met.
For exampl, Darwin infer'd the unity of lIf from persyving the individual diversity of lIf forms. Biblikal theory was that spesys wer exaktly similar special kreations. Darwin remark'd on slIt diferenses even betwyn individuals of the saim spesys. And ther ar gradations of diferens betwyn diferent spesys. He sujested al spesys wer mor or les klosly related. This led him to konklud ther evolution from uon an other.
Darwin show'd that even the most exotik and unusual spesys had 'natural' rysons for evolving that kud be tras'd bak to som komon ansestor to other spesys. That is not to denI the wonder and mystery of spesys variety.
G and L Beadle, also Jacob Bronowski talk'd of 'the languaj of lIf'. Spesys, lIk words, translat into divers nw mynings or go out of fashon and bekom extinkt.
An interpretiv siens of partikular events was also the main konsern,
especialy of nIntynth sentury German historikal skolarship. But an
interpretiv element is also hinted at, in modern fysiks, from the start.
For Galileo, the bwk of natur is riten in the languaj of
mathematiks. He saw jeometrik forms as symbols representing shaips observ'd
in natur, such as trajektorys folowing the paths of konik sektions.
A modern astronomer kal'd the Krab Nebula a 'Rosetta Stoun' to desifer the languaj of the univers, bekaus the fait of this destroy'd star was belyv'd to som-wat resembl the explosiv expansion of the kosmos.
Nukleik asid, as diskover'd in the simpl virus, also prov'd to be a 'rosetta stoun' of the 'jenetik koud'. The nukleik asid koil of the virus is the myns it bors into, and taks over, other sels, to reprodus the virus insted of the host sel. Nukleik asid was thus interpreted to be the jeneral mekanism of sel reproduktion.
'Siens' myns 'nolej', a word wich shers the saim Latin rwt as
'nominat', wich myns 'to naim'. Naming is the esential funktion of
languaj, wich, at rwt, siens is.
Nominalist filosofy held that nolej is myrly naming
klases of things. Things that difer'd lyst betwyn themselvs wer
konveniently klasify'd to bring order out of konfusion.
Darwin rylIs'd that the klasifikation of spesys was to pijon-hol
the infinit variety of lIf. His nominalism ( wich may hav influens'd
Amerikan pragmatist filosofy) led away from the Biblikal idea of special
kreations to evolution.
This filosofy of mor or les diferens, or relativ rather than
absolut diferenses ( say, betwyn spesys ) lyds to mor sientifik
mesurment. For, the mesur of nolej is not myrly to klasify things
but order klases of things akros ther houl ranj of diversity.
A siens progreses along thys and further skails of mesurment or
rekognis'd stajes of mor akurat nolej.
To tak an other exampl of progresiv mesurment, kandidats may be klas'd into partys. But, as individuals, ther opinions wil merj akros party lIns, in a politikal spektrum. If every voter for a party kandidat is klas'd by the kounting system as a partisan, the result wil be a forgon konklusion in terms of the voters' komitment to the partys. For, such a system disregards the represented and the representativs as individuals.
Nominalism is such individualist dout about how valid ar rijid
klasifikations and ther konsequenses. Perhaps the first leson of
sientifik method is: Dont presyum wat yu ar seting out to prov.
A theoretikal asumption, such as that voters ar unqualify'd partisans,
must be open to unambiguus refutation.
Having mayd the usual distinktion betwen theory and experiment, in
sientifik method, the text-bwks swn advis the ryder to remov presumption
or prejudis from theory and ambiguity or dilema in testing it.
As a student, reflekting on Nagel's 'The Structure of Science', I
rylIs'd that a sientifik theory is ryly a languaj.
( I swn lern'd that my in-sIt was komon nolej. Also, uon of our
lekturers, John Phillips put us on to the importans of languaj in
filosofy and social siens.)
LIk a languaj, a theory is a world of words. It holds together in a
lojikly related struktur or 'gramar' and ankors sekurly at many
points to the komon ground of our experienses. (Karl Pearson's klasik is
kal'd 'The Grammar of Science'.)
Even the disagryments, as to the natur of theorys, lend themselvs to the idea of a theory as a languaj:
The deskriptiv viw of theorys sujests the purpos of languaj,
wich is to deskrib things. Also, the word 'skript' myns riten languaj.
But this viw is held to hav the short-koming that several aparently
diferent theorys, such as the diferent quantum models of the atom, giv
quIt diferent deskriptions.Ther importans, therfor, is put down to
ther yus as 'twls' rather than deskriptions of 'the truth'.
This kompeting theory of theorys desends from nominalism and is kal'd
pragmatism or instrumentalism.
How-ever, languaj and twls hav in komon that they 'evolv'. Twls
reprodus and mutat as they ar adapted to a nw environment of yusajes,
they ar instrumental in kreating. Indyd, languaj and twls ar the
komon sens for-runers of siens and teknolojy. So, it shud be no
surpris that theorys are konsider'd as either deskriptions or twls.
A rejoinder, in turn, to instrumentalism, is the rylist viw of
theorys. This argyus that, in the history of siens, ther hav byn
konsepts or working ideas, wich had no nown reality at the tIm. They
wer myrly found to be yusful ways of lwking at a thing. But inkrys'd
nolej over-twk ideas, wich had only byn yusful 'twls' and mayd
them realitys.
This was the kais with atoms and jyns, and quarks - wich Murray
Gell-Mann belyv'd from the start wer ryl.
Ernst Mach's doktrin of positivism is rylism mayd into a program that konsepts always shud positivly identify ryl things to our observation. This was so theorys wer not vaig and kud be properly tested. This basis for klyr akseptans or rejektion was ment to serv sientifik progres.
But Max Planck kritisis'd this extrym exklusion of al kreativ konsepts, hws reality was not imediatly nown. He justify'd his position in praktis, in 1900, with the most revolutionary konsept in twentieth sentury fysiks, the quantum.
Planck's viw is akin to that of theorys as analojys. Thys ar forein paterns of thot that may not be literaly tru of the subjekt they ar introdus'd to, but kud help to understand it beter. A helpful analojy is lIk lerning to spyk the languaj of a problem.
Mach's viw of theorys, balans'd by Planck's, may be ilustrated by voting
methods.
An x-marks-the-spot vot, for mor than tw kandidats, kan not ensur
any uon kandidat wil get an over-al majority. Only the kandidat with
the most vots 'first past the post' is elekted. But the truth is that he
may not be past the post of a demokratik majority. Elektion of only the
larjest minority maks a fiktional konsept of first past the post as a
majority system.
Mach's doktrin wud rItly requir hyr a voting system with a ryl
konseption of majority representation.
In this respekt, Planck's experiens of theory konstruktion nyd not konflikt with Mach's, bekaus a ryl majority system requir'd kreativ nw konsepts both in the vot and the kount of elektions, naimly preferens voting and quota kounting. This was the system invented independently by Andrae and Hare, nowadays nown as the singl transferabl vote.
(As explained els-wer, the Droop quota jeneralises the singl majority kount to the nw konseption of a 'multi-majority kount'. This is konsistent (as theorys shud be) with the konseption of a preferens vot aktualy ofering many preferenses, insted of the uon preferens ofer'd by an x-vot.)
Proportional representation, if without a personal preferens vot, myrly rations the voters to a party chois of kandidats. Voting for 'a party' fits Mach's kritisism of a presumptiv konsept that has no reality, exept in the individuals hw kompris it. A party vot is a fiktion that denIs the reality of personal suport.
Ther ar diferent notions about theorys but they sym kompatibl with the idea of a theory as a languaj. The struktur of a theory is held to konsist of, firstly, a formal staij. Uon or mor abstrakt jeneral prinsipls deriv a houl system of ideas by lojikal implikation. This gramar of siens dosnt myn any-thing by itself but kan be yus'd to say any number of diferent things.
Sekondly, an operational staij staits ruls for testing a formal system's implikations in praktis. uon gos thru this kind of thing in lerning a languaj. I remember my exItment as an infant finding out the praktikal rul of pointing at things, to ask the formal question, 'Wat's that?' It was a nw world in wich every-thing had its naim.
Thirdly, an interpretiv staij imajins the formal system in as many ways
as myningful models kan be found to suit it. A model may indyd be a model
for theorys in other fylds, if it has a mekanism of brod aplikation.
In this respekt, Darwin's theory of natural selektion is uon of the
most 'kreativ' models in siens. It has byn adapted to 'evolutionary'
theorys of molekuls, reflexes, memorys, nural net-works, even of
universes, as wel as languajes and twls.
Mesurment is a formal progresion of lojikal stajes that operat as the suksesiv skails of mesurment. The praktis of elektoral method has byn 'evolv'd' to the singl transferabl vot, wich brodly myts thys standards of sientifik mesurment.
Lwking at siens as languaj kan brij natural and social siens.
If natural siens is the universal languaj of natur, social or moral
siens is the individual myning or purpos of lIf.
As uon of my old sosiolojy lekturers told us at a party, 'languaj is
the ky'. Languaj ofers a universal nolej to the komunity that yuses
it. Siens stems from that. The social yus of languaj is in fryly shering
that nolej. This is the proto-tIp of the so-kal'd social funktion of
siens. It is the rekording, publishing, explaining, diskusing of
diskoverys, the parlimentary sId of siens.
Peter Winch, in 'The Idea of a Social Science', said that 'social siens'
is mor akin to the social funktion of siens. If natural siens is
nolej (of frydom), social siens is frydom (of nolej). Frydom
of information is esential to both siens and demokrasy.
The social funktion of siens is ryly the operation of a parlimentary
demokrasy in siens.
Under the 'komon law' of languaj, or sher'd gramatikal ruls, every-uon is fry to represent ther mynings.
Even if social siens shud be primarily about human frydom, som jeneral
law of sosiety, how-ever trivial, shud be implisit in it. After al, it's
byn argu'd that universal nolej is of individual frydom.
Supos sosiolojy's universal law BE sosiety or the komunity of
human individuals. Then a deduktiv theory or explanation of sosiety wil
be in terms of the komunity, as its universal prinsipl. The individuals,
hw mak up the komunity, ar the kondition of its existens.
This kondition to the prinsipl enabls the deduktion of a konklusion. The truism of a kondition that individuals mak up sosiety ruls out korporatism, as in party list voting for a grup insted of individual kandidats, or legal privilejes to korporat finans.
Now, the komunity is a komon understanding betwyn individuals, or a sher'd languaj, in the wId sens, not only of sher'd spych but kustoms and rituals with ther symbolik mynings. Individuals kan interpret the myning and purpos of ther komunity, bekaus they ar mor or les representativ of it.
An individual is socialy representativ of the pepl he has liv'd with, and hw hav influens'd his karakter. Thys pepl ar the 'konstituents' of his personality. This basik out-lwk is yus'd to justify the siens of sosiolojy, as distinkt from sykolojy. That the personality is social is how sosiolojists justify ther existens.
If sosiolojy studys the social representation of the individual in the komunity, then, for instans, politikal siens studys the politikal representation of the individual in the komunity. And the social sienses, in jeneral, study kinds of representation, such as the representativ 'ekonomik man'. But this maks the branches of social siens special studys in demokrasy.
To be konsistent, the sosiolojist has to study sosiety as (mor lIkly) she, for a fakt, konsiders herself: a fry ajent. As the sosiolojist expekts others to be responsibl to her, she has to be responsibl to them. Lojikly, the study'd hav to be on equal terms of frydom with the studiers. Sosio-lojik is of demokrasy.
The alternativ is an oligarky of nolej or kind of sekret prysthud, advokated by Auguste Comte, sosiolojy's founder, at his worst. The barbarus jargon of a sudo-siens is a symptom of elitism. At the most basik level of lerning, inkonsistent English speling privilejes thos with mor tIm and mony to wayst, as Thorstein Veblen remark'd.
Sins sosietys ar konditional upon languaj, then the demokrasy of languaj is a jeneral law of sosiety. Demokrasy is, to that extent, lIk the jeneral laws in the natural sienses.
If languaj is the demokrasy of thot, then a demokrasy of aktion shud folow from it. But politikal ( or ekonomik ) demokrasy may not be the kais. Then the konditions ar not fuly met for the demokrati prinsipl to work properly in a sosiety.
This is as if, in natural siens, the konditions, that a jeneral law aplI'd in, wer not properly spesify'd. But it is part of the 'social funktion' or demokratik proses of siens to do this. As a nesesary komplement to this, social sientifik progres is a proses of making sosiety mor demokratik.
But such progres is not for som ideolojy to preswm. Al sorts of politiks klaim to be 'demokratik'. We ar thry tIms warn'd of dubius kredentials, by a 'pepls demokratik republik'. This is no gud, unles rekognis'd sientifik standards kan be satisfy'd for demokrasy.
To say ther shud always be demokrasy in sosiety is a moral law. A moral law is unsientifik if it is only an imperativ or unkonditional staitment, such as: yu shud do this or not do that. But an Idyl of demokrasy kan be progresivly re-stated, as in natural siens, by ever mor presisly specifying the konditions for a jeneral rul (of the pepl) to hold.
Fors of konquest has atempted human unity. But the importing, for instans, of a relijus symbolism, or languaj in the brodest sens, paid lip-servis to kohesion by such pysful myns. Benedetto Croce is the filosofer of history as the history of liberty. Heinrich Heine also spok in such terms.
H G Wells' 'Outline of History' was an edukation in world unity and its demokratik konditions. Thorstein Veblen was koming to similar konklusions in 'The Nature of Peace'. Wells tels history as uon story of mankind, lIk a novel, in wich the karakters ar introdus'd separatly, befor ther paths kros.
Wells' and Croce's ideas kombin for a history of unity in liberty, that is
history as the history of demokrasy.
Both Wells and Bertrand Russell said that rulers hav sot to impos
unity and the rul'd hav sot to liberat themselvs. (Hens the kurent
strugl for and against a Euro-stait.) Wells saw representativ demokrasy
as ther only posibl pysful rekonsiliation.
Wells began the debait resulting in the 1940 Sankey Deklaration of Human RIts:
It has been the practise of what are called the democratic or parliamentary countries to meet every enhancement and centralization of power in the past by a definite and vigorous reassertion of the individual rights of man.
Section 11 inkluds: 'electoral methods which give effective expression to individual choice.'
Human history has the story-teling interest of not noing how it wil turn out. Woodrow Wilson wanted to mak the world saif for demokrasy. Wells wanted demokrasy to mak the world saif. In this respekt, historikal turning points hav influens'd the world for beter or wors.
Sosiolojists konsider wat mIt hav hapen'd, 'if only' som krucial event had gon the other way. Max Weber kondukted imajinary experiments with history. The Greeks only won the batls of Marathon and Salamis against al the ods. So, it was rylistik to konsider wat mIt hav hapen'd had they lost.
Mor-over, Weber nw by other Persian konquests, such as of Judea, that prystly authority was aserted over the profets. LIkwIs, Greece wud hav lost its intelektual independens. Weber argu'd this wud hav byn fatal for the development of Western sivilisation. ( Such as it is! )
Weber yus'd exaktly the kind of thot experiments Einstein yus'd with natur. Einstein imajin'd an akselerated spas-man, hw, in droping a weit symingly akted upon by gravity, was lyving it behind by its own inertia. From this, his 'prinsipl of equivalens', of akseleration to gravity, was deriv'd for prediktion and test.
Wether Weber was rIt is debatabl. (Zoroaster's relijon was progresiv, and he may be the main sors of the world's monotheism.) The ryl point is that Weber's kontrary-to-fakt staitment, of orthodoxy ousting fry thot in ancient Greece, implIs a law of the progres of nolej depending on frydom.
Weber's historikal konjektur kan neither be prov'd or disprov'd. It was a unyk event that kan not be repyted with a probabl diferens of out-kom. But the jeneral staitment that nolej depends on frydom is lIk a sientifik law that kan be tested in prinsipl by cheking the efekts on nolej of the presens or absens of frydom.
Nolej is languaj in that 'to spyk the saim languaj' myns sying the world in the saim way. Unanimity is over som komon ground, wich ofers a starting point for the frydom to difer and achyv ultimatly a broder mesur of agryment.
Siens, konsisting of theory and experiment, must respekt both lojik and evidens. The lojikal dependens, of unanimity on liberty, is that if pepl ar not truly fry, they kan not truly agry. But without som way of testing this staitment by the evidens, it bekoms a myningles asertion or dogma.
The evidens mIt wel show that alowing libertys destroy'd unity. This kud be explain'd as 'taking libertys' that upset a kuntry's equilibrium of rIts. Wen liberty apyrs to end unity, we kan not myrly say it was 'lIsens', to suit our argument. That provs nothing exept uon's prejudis, wich is unsientifik.
LIkwIs, if uon said the apyrans of solidarity without disent wasnt 'tru' unity or liberty, without explaining wat uon myns by the truth, uon dosnt alow uon-self to be prov'd rong. So, nothing myningful or sientifik about the world has byn said.
From a kritikal survey of the evidens, we mIt desId wich was tru, unity with or without liberty. But a jeneral rul of observation, uon way or the other, if uon kud be found, is diferent from a lojikly dedus'd konklusion. For, we hav no ryson to belyv that an empirikal jeneralisation is mor than a long, if sujestiv, ko-insidens, that mIt sys to kontinu.
For exampl, a long unify'd pepl mIt desId to split up. Ther mIt be special rysons for this, such as a nw thret that ther integration som-how pos'd to ther having enuf elbow-rwm. But this kud only be juj'd with regard to the evidens.
A ko-insidens of evidens mIt be no mor than an aksidental
jeneralisation. Uon kan not mak a lojikly sertain deduktion from it.
Uon kud not say for shur that if such a thing wer the kais, then
som-thing els wud hav to folow.
Most pepl ar familiar with this kind of staitment as: 'If only I
had nown then wat I no now, every-thing wud hav byn diferent.'
This is saying that nolej givs frydom: no the truth and it wil
mak yu fry.
Thys 'If only...' staitments of kontrary-to-the-fakt konditions (kounter-faktual konditionals) ar yus'd, in the filosofy of siens, to tel natural laws from aksidental jeneralisatons, bekaus only laws kan implI them.
An over-welming uon-party vot is an aksidental jeneralisation, du to the 'aksident' or kontinjensy of the pepl being alow'd no other chois. Therfor, no disprwf of this aparent mono-mania is posibl. In 1987, Izvestiya 'officially admitted that the 99.99% yes vote at Soviet elections was a farce.' ( The Sunday Times. )
A fals unity kan thus be defin'd as uon komanded by a monopoly of power, as held by a uon-party stait or establish'd church. An enjinyr'd unanimity is not som determinist law of history that pepl march thru as uon party in uon mind - historisism, as Karl Popper kal'd it. In siens, a law-lIk staitment is konditional, such as: unanimity only in liberty.
The simplest test, of wether a kuntry was truly united behind a singl grup in power, wud be to ask publik opinion, alowing independent grups and individuals to kompyt with the rulers for the popular chois of government.
As a test for evidens, fry elektions ar a result of the sientifik atitud. This work began bekaus most pepl stil do not rylIs that a fry elektoral system is requir'd for a proper test of popular chois. The elektoral test of tru unity wud be efektiv only with elektions that truly gav fredom of individual chois.
The kondition of unanimity in liberty kud be presisly tested wen it
was put in elektoral terms by Carl Andrae and Thomas Hare.
SufIs to say hyr that John Stuart Mill, perhaps the lyding
filosofer of siens in the nIntynth sentury, imediatly rylIs'd its
signifikans (in 'Representative Government', ch.vii, fut-nout 1):
In the Danish Constitution...the equal representation of minorities was provided for on a plan so nearly identical with Mr Hare's, as to add another to the many examples how the ideas which resolve difficulties arising out of a general situation of the human mind or of society, present themselves, without communication, to several superior minds at once.
Richard Lung.