Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: The Value of Science and Scientific Management of Society

  1. #11
    Senior Member Ward's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 12:08 AM
    Ethnicity
    Vinlandic
    Ancestry
    1/2 German, 1/4 Norwegian, 1/4 Irish
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    The Wild Frontier
    Gender
    Posts
    697
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    35
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    32
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    It's founded on a scientific approach, but that doesn’t mean that this is the only possible result of a scientific approach to managing our societies.
    It's founded on theory, not science.

    The foundation of the liberal contract theory on which our politics are built has its origins in Thomas Hobbes’ extension of physics to the human domain, ‘atomizing’ the individual. From the field of economy and social sciences rational choice theory has been very important to liberalism as well. We can't ignore the influence of positivism either.
    Again, these are theories/philosophies, not science. Of course the plausibility of these theories can be tested through science, but theories that deny the significance of blood and race typically don't fare well when put to the test (which is why they work to suppress racial science).

    No, it’s not the jetplane that arises automatically, it are the laws behind it that function automatically. The element between the two is human.
    So I don’t quite understand when you reply with:
    This is what you said:

    The examples I provided were rather meant as examples of the problem that might occur in the case we had such a crystal ball. We would be able to literally see what has happened, observe a succession of different events. But what do we make of these events? Which one caused the other and to what extent?

    [....]

    More in general, how can we scientifically predict ideas, actions, attitudes?
    What science can find out gives us something to work with. But in the end it's always us that will have to work with it. Otherwise, why would we need to organize society according to laws that already work on their own?


    Now think again about what I wrote.

    If we can discover historical laws through the scientific study of human history, we can certainly put them to use.

    In a race-based society that recognizes the value of eugenics, scientific management is a cornerstone. If stagnating in a feudalistic order is the true Germanic way as some Traditionalists seem to believe, then count me out. For me, the Germanic spirit is about beauty, creativity, and striving for excellence in whatever we do. It's about reaching for the stars.
    — Always outnumbered but never outclassed —

  2. #12
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    836
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    67
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    98
    Thanked in
    38 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ward View Post
    It's founded on theory, not science.

    Again, these are theories/philosophies, not science. Of course the plausibility of these theories can be tested through science, but theories that deny the significance of blood and race typically don't fare well when put to the test (which is why they work to suppress racial science).
    Concerning Hobbes you might be right; perhaps it's closer to an analogy than actual science. Still, it was one of the first examples to approach human society from a scientific point of view.
    But f.e. rational choice theory is not just a theory. All science includes theory, you cannot oppose the two as if they were different things. After all, a theory can be verified. More in general, economy has had a profound influence on our political thought. And this is because human beings are in fact 'economical beings', just like I argued that human beings are historical beings. And the economy does reveal a lot about a certain facet of human life. But the point is that human life has many facets and each science offers a different perspective, a different perspective to reality. Viewing human life through one of these perspectives automatically creates a lack of vision on the other facets.
    A question; do you think the foundation of society on biological grounds would make the economical science redundant? If yes, how do you account for selfish behaviour that goes against the preservation of the race? If no, what is the determining factor to rule out the significance of one of the two when their respective results stand in opposition to eachother?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ward View Post
    This is what you said:

    The examples I provided were rather meant as examples of the problem that might occur in the case we had such a crystal ball. We would be able to literally see what has happened, observe a succession of different events. But what do we make of these events? Which one caused the other and to what extent?

    [....]

    More in general, how can we scientifically predict ideas, actions, attitudes?
    What science can find out gives us something to work with. But in the end it's always us that will have to work with it. Otherwise, why would we need to organize society according to laws that already work on their own?


    Now think again about what I wrote.

    If we can discover historical laws through the scientific study of human history, we can certainly put them to use.
    You're confusing two different arguments. The latter quote was about the position of the human will in relation to discovered scientific laws, while the former was about me contesting the possibility of a specific science (history) to discover such laws in the first place.
    Science as the creator of jetplanes is the type of science I've been defending: science is a tool.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ward View Post
    If stagnating in a feudalistic order is the true Germanic way as some Traditionalists seem to believe, then count me out. For me, the Germanic spirit is about beauty, creativity, and striving for excellence in whatever we do. It's about reaching for the stars.
    Well, if you have been reading my posts as arguments for a feudalist order based on the philosophy of Traditionalism you might miss the point I'm trying to make. I didn't mention these topics in this discussion at all and they haven't in any way inspired my position in this argument. Concerning the last two sentences, count me in!

  3. #13
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,382
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    65
    Thanked in
    37 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    The difference is that the distinction Nietzsche made is based on character and therefor any distinguishable level of truthfulness that can be found in the different types he described (if they can be found at all) is accidental.
    I don't see the relevance here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    For some aspects of history that can prove fruitful, but it would not make the science of history redundant. Human beings would still remain historical beings.
    I didn't say it would. If historical science reaches its limits, other sciences can take over. We call this "interdisciplinary science".
    Taking history as an isolated example, then showing me the limits of it, and then concluding science can't give us what we need, is bogus. We have more sciences available, countless actually, since scientific categories are just man made distinctions which do not exist in the real world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    Indeed, history was only an example. Sociology is perhaps even more interesting, because it studies something that is a result of different individuals coming together, but at the same time cannot be found in those individuals. It's what Othmar Spann calls 'Gezweiung', the fact that the whole of a people is more than the sum of its parts.
    While it is another isolated example, it is yet again an isolated example. Scientific categories do not exist to begin with. Their classification is made by men to help them think about them, and to hopefully isolate certain variables, of which we know they actually all interact.
    E.g. nature does not know about Nordids nor Negros, we established those categories, to understand the workings of nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    Because we cannot repeat history in an experiment (everything would need to be exactly the same, which because it is history is impossible in principle) we would still end up with a diversity of causal explanations competing with eachother.
    This is a good point, the missing of experiments is a problem. However, the sheer amount of data available might make some explanations stand out very much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    And we cannot isolate these different factors.
    So we would still be subject to the regular problems history faces without a crystal ball, such as the attempt of monocausal explanations like Marx did.
    No, the very fact, that we are aware of different causal possibilities would prevent this.
    You are saying that the degree of past knowledge is irrelevant, Google proves you wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    Yes, and I'm trying to get along. I agree with the use this would have; but than we would know how ideas come into existence, but not what they are. Once created, an idea has a reality of its own. How it transfers to someone else and how receptive this other individual is to the idea is something only the humanities can deal with.
    Hm, I am confused now. This whole discussion came from the remark that many people believe to much in science. Now, are "the humanities" science or not?
    As said above, I see no reason to stay in certain categories of science. Science is everything we deduce through the scientific method (after August Weismann, and implicitly Karl Popper), and any knowledge there is, is worthless without a predictive component.

    Maybe I can answer my question to Hauke myself now: Scientific knowledge is always flawed, in that in can not be proven, but only be falsified. There is a point where we have to decide what to believe.
    Ultimately, I think the problem is indeed with taking certain scientific findings, and elevating them to truth, even though, we do not know them to be true. Yet, as I said at first, this is not a problem of believing in science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    I won't dispute this, but we still have to decide that what Negro influx leads to is a bad thing.
    Naturally.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  4. #14
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    836
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    67
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    98
    Thanked in
    38 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    I don't see the relevance here.
    The relevance is that the distinction Nietzsche made was not, like you described, based on diverging levels of truthfulness but on character and as such this distinction tells us something about the nature of the historical science. In Nietzsches words: "Insofar as history stands in the service of life, it stands in the service of an unhistorical power and will therefore, in this subordinate position, never be able to (and should never be able to) become pure science, the way mathematics is, for example".

    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    I didn't say it would. If historical science reaches its limits, other sciences can take over. We call this "interdisciplinary science".
    Taking history as an isolated example, then showing me the limits of it, and then concluding science can't give us what we need, is bogus. We have more sciences available, countless actually, since scientific categories are just man made distinctions which do not exist in the real world.
    Interdisciplinary science merely acknowledges that the problems we face can be approached from multiple angles and that a monodisciplinary perspective causes one to overlook other facets. Other sciences do not 'take over' in such an approach, they add something to it. The innate characteristics of the individual disciplines therefore remain intact, including that of history. The relevance of history in this is not about what its limits are, but what it offers that other disciplines don't, taking us back to Nietzsche again.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    While it is another isolated example, it is yet again an isolated example. Scientific categories do not exist to begin with. Their classification is made by men to help them think about them, and to hopefully isolate certain variables, of which we know they actually all interact.
    E.g. nature does not know about Nordids nor Negros, we established those categories, to understand the workings of nature.
    This is a circular argument. The discussion was about whether there is a principle distinction between certain sciences in which these isolated examples I offered would or would not represent a type of non-predicting science. You then claim the irrelevance of my examples because of the man-made nature of scientific categories. But this presupposes a single reality that, given we possess the tools, can be predicted through whatever scientific category one needs. And the existence of this was exactly what we were debating!
    I agree that scientific categories are man-made, but not that they all study a same kind of reality. Hence the relevance of my 'isolated examples' which serve as illustrations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    This is a good point, the missing of experiments is a problem. However, the sheer amount of data available might make some explanations stand out very much.
    Yes and they can be guiding in our future decisions. But the decisions will not follow unmediated from the results of historical study.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    No, the very fact, that we are aware of different causal possibilities would prevent this.
    You are saying that the degree of past knowledge is irrelevant, Google proves you wrong.
    In Marx’ time people were aware of different causal possibilities as well. Marx must at least have known the opposite Hegelian explanation of history, considering he turned it upside down. So that’s not the point. It has been the attempt to approach social problems as one does natural phenomena that has caused people to resort to monocausal explanations, because they needed to be able to create a model capable of prediction/experiments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    Hm, I am confused now. This whole discussion came from the remark that many people believe to much in science. Now, are "the humanities" science or not?
    As said above, I see no reason to stay in certain categories of science. Science is everything we deduce through the scientific method (after August Weismann, and implicitly Karl Popper), and any knowledge there is, is worthless without a predictive component.
    In my initial post I said the following: “My perspective would be that of all sciences humans have created, only a part of these (the natural sciences) make it possible for humans to predict things. And it is this type of science that is meant when people speak of a scientifically organized society.”

    So I would still uphold this distinction between natural sciences/predicting sciences/experiments on the one hand and humanities (the example of history)/human will/decisions on the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    Naturally.
    Enter the problem of scientific management. It’s a pretension to neutrality that eliminates the human element of decision, since science tells us what to do, not us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    Maybe I can answer my question to Hauke myself now: Scientific knowledge is always flawed, in that in can not be proven, but only be falsified. There is a point where we have to decide what to believe.
    Ultimately, I think the problem is indeed with taking certain scientific findings, and elevating them to truth, even though, we do not know them to be true. Yet, as I said at first, this is not a problem of believing in science.
    I think we are reaching mutual ground here. My position is also not a matter of not believing in science, but rather acknowledging its specific position in relation to ourselves. Perhaps on a more general note, my position is influenced by Heidegger and Schmitt. Both, in their criticism of the role of technology in modernity, rather attacked the human attitude towards it in stead of technology as such.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, June 15th, 2016, 06:01 AM
  2. Is Science Racist? Liberals Want to Drop Science Classes
    By Nachtengel in forum Immigration & Multiculturalism
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, January 27th, 2010, 02:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •