Differences between Ideology and Science

1.Certainty of answers- many people find comfort in ideologies because they off absolute truth and certain answers. They provide people with feelings of assurance and sense of security. In contract social scientific theories offer only tentative answers and admit to uncertainty. May people are uneasy with the persistent uncertainty, hesitation, and tentativeness of scientific theories. Social science theories require us to have high tolerance for ambiguity, to ask questions continuously, and to live with persistent doubt.

2. Type of knowledge system differs- ideologies offer a close d system of knowledge that changes little. Ideologies claim to have all the answers and do not require improvement. In contrast, science is an open-ended knowledge system that is always growing and changing. It’s answers and re incomplete and subject to revisions as we acquire new evidence and knowledge. Theories continuously evolve, grow, or develop toward higher levels- sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly; sometimes directly, sometimes only after a temporary reversal or diversion.

3. Type of assumptions- both ideologies and social scientific theories contain assumptions. The assumptions in ideologies tend to be fixed, inflexible, and unquestioned. Most ideological assumptions originate in one of three sources: religious belief or faith, a value-based position or the point of view of a particular social position. When they originate in a particular social location ideologies protect and advance that one sector of society. Social science differs from ideology by an attempt to be neutral with regard to assumptions or, if not entirely neutral, very explicit and open about its assumptions.

4. Use of normative statements differ- ideologies contain many normative assumptions, statements and ideas. They advance a normative stance or position. A normative statement is one that contains “what ought to be.” It tells us what is desirable, proper, moral, and right versus undesirable, improper, immoral or wrong.  An ideology, like a social theory, tells us what is and why but goes beyond that to have a “what should be.” Ideologies blur the distinction between a descriptive, fact-based assertion- this is what happened or how people live- an explanation- this is why it happened or why people live this way- and a normative position- this should have occurred or is how people should live. In social theory, normative-moral positions are detached or separated from the descriptive statements and explanations, while in ideologies; the normative positions are integral to and embedded within the descriptive statements and explanations. This makes it impossible to remove the normative positions from ideologies.

5. Use of empirical evidence differs- the primary distinction between scientific theory and ideology involves empirical evidence. Supporters of an ideology will selectively present and interpret the evidence in way to protect and ideological belief. Often they emphasize personal experience, conformity to a core value conviction, or religious faith as an ultimate type of evidence that overrides careful empirical observation. As a closed belief system that already has “the answers,” ideologies resist or deny contradictory evidence. When and ideology confronts overwhelmingly negative or contradictory evidence,, the ideologies do not bend or change. From an ideological worldview, believers will selectively reinterpret, treat as an exception, or declare negative evidence as irrelevant to the ideology’s claims. Believers in an ideology react with fear and hostility toward people who disagree. Social theories are open systems of belief and explanation; they welcome all evidence. Because social science theories are open to continuous debate, modification, or change, they are constantly evolving. Using all evidence including refuting evidence science is seeking proof to dispute it’s own ideas rather than disregarding important evidence life ideologies.  

6. Demand for logical consistency differs- ideologies often contain logical contradictions, and many ideologies rely on circular reasoning. There are many forms of circular reasoning; some are logical fallacies or errors in true logical reasoning. They simply repeat a statement in slightly different for stronger terms as evidence or reasoning for it. They typical response to finding a logical contractions or fallacy in an ideology is to den it or cover it up. In contrast, we as social scientists insist that theories be logical consistent. We are constantly trying to root out and remove all logical fallacies. If we discover a fallacy or contradiction, we revise the theory or replace it with a deferent on that does not contain a fallacy or contradiction.

7. Transparency differs- the distinction between ideology and theory has implications for the way we conduct research studies. In social scientific research, we are aware of a theory’s assumptions, concepts, and relationships and make them explicit. Theory and its place in research are very public; we as scientists hide nothing. Combines with visibility is a welcome to challenges and open debate. In contrast, ideologies often contain features that are obscure or difficult to pinpoint. Ideologies frequently often areas clouded in mystery or secrecy; they seek to obedience and deference, not serious challenge or debate.

Author W. Laurence Neuman and Krista Huff 

FUCK FACEBOOK (because I know you all want to)

FUCK FACEBOOK

Have you ever been in the mood to say eff you to the world on Facebook? I’m not saying “eff” you to anyone. Just because I hate the world right now doesn’t mean that I am definitively saying “eff” your I am just inquiring as to your interest in saying fuck you to the world while on the internet and engaging in artificial communication on the phenomenon called Facebook.

I’m not passively saying eff you to the world I am just impassively saying that I may or may not aggressively distain everyone I know on Facebook. Not because I particularly hate anyone I know but that I impaticularly (this is a made up word) may or mat not be repulsed by everyone that is currently living and a few individuals that are not living. This is not to say that I am saying Fuck the world or anything I am just reverting to a confusing way of expressing my loathing for the living organisms that utilize Facebook to engage in artificial interaction whist using the a CPU or other electronic device that is also utilized to pretend to experience an emotional connection.

I could postulate that I infact do not actually distain or loathe the actual persons behind the profile on Facebook but that artifices that represent the actual persons or the persona of individuals on Facebook are socially dissatisfactory to my emotional and social needs. This is not meant in anyway to offend the persons on Facebook but to unemotionally express my sentiments and dissatisfaction on the subject of the FUCKING FAKE PHENOMON CALLED FACEBOOK!!! !

The Dynamic Illusion and Veracity of Death

When discussing my sister's death my friend often reminds me of the law of conservation of energy which states, "energy cannot be created nor destroyed." The thoughts that we have in our minds are an actual beam or electrical current of energy. Science learned long ago that sound travels into outer space indefinitely and that if you go deep enough into space you could listen to the dinosaurs. Can't the thoughts that we have also have real physical tangibility, because they are an actual form of energy? Can't the individual thoughts accumulate to be perceived as the whole of our consciousness? If our consciousness is the accumulation of all our thoughts then that energy in theory cannot be destroyed. What I'm proposing is that our consciousness will continue to exist throughout the eternities just as the words we speak do. I see our thoughts as little waves of light that compile to make our "soul." Perhaps the notion of a soul is just a mythological or magical way of perceiving the scientific truth of what our consciousness truly is..... eternal, indefinite, infinite, alive. In this way you can see how death is so real and yet if energy cannot be created nor destroyed then the energy of our thoughts, our soul, our consciousness was also not created or destroyed. Through this you can see the illusion of death. Along with this post on death I wanted to share a poem that I wrote about my experiences with my dear sister's death.

POST GRACIA

Here alone I sit,

Yet this isolation is just a fit of regret.

Here alone I fear,

            But my fear affords only an occasional tear.

Here alone I want,

            But we both know that escape is just a taunt.

Here alone I cry,

            Because you have and tortuously can’t ever die.

Here alone I ache,

            And my love for you can now only ever take.

Here alone I feel,

            Your presence, your occupation so real.

Here alone I see,

            My pain is all that you can ever be.

Here alone with me,

            I can’t say goodbye, I can’t let you flee.

Here alone I die,

            Every breath is one breath closer, and yet you fie.

Here alone I be,

            You and me. 

Cavemen In A Modern World

Modern life, with its electronic era, every thing is electric, from our speech cell phones, to our letters, email, to our transportation, cars, to our hospitals and modern medicine being so dependent on electricity that its non existent without it. Even our sex is electric, its so rare that our sexual experiences are two people with only their flesh participating, usually it’s a man masturbating to a video, or the TV or stereo is on, or we employ some electric device to aid us in our sexual endeavors. Our food and our water exist because of electricity. None thing in our lives is void of this electronic existence.  Its salient nature so contrasting from the life of the people we received our genetic traits.

Some people seem to lack understanding about the fact that our genetic code comes from an entirely different world, and not to say a different planet but a different environment, physically and socially. What this means is that our species was designed for an entirely different life than the one we live.

If you take a tropical animal from its home it will certainly die. Dogs are more adapted for modern life as a result of genetic mutation, selection and breeding. Humans haven’t been breed and this results in an ancient man in a modern world. Completely unaware of his and her needs, completely incapable of identifying as to why something is wrong, only that it feels wrong. If you took a baby parrot and raised it in a human household you learn overtime that this animal is meant to fly and be free and socialize with other animals, this animal was deigned to migrate and have a sense of its whereabouts on the planet. These natural instincts are apart of the core of this animal’s physiological well-being. Modern humanity is so much the same. We have not genetically mutated to fit our modern environment. Humanity is the caged animal and the greatest travesty is that we have shackled ourselves. Often in our society people refer to apocalyptic events, world wars, global epidemics, aliens arriving to earth, saviors, second comings, devils and all sorts of human drama that the creative mind can perceive.

 I believe this is an aberration of the collective subconscious of the people of this planet. The subconscious minds of the people are screaming out that something is wrong, very wrong. Like the caged parrot, we don’t quite know what’s wrong but we feel that something is wrong. Our imaginative minds conceive all sorts of creative stories to place the blame on. In the end the only way we would know what is really wrong would be to take a modern man and place him in the social and physical environment that our ancestors lived in. Only then would he stop and look and perceive that he is living the life he was designed to live. At this point you may be wondering if I am attempting to eradicate modern life and live as our ancestors lived. Quite the contrary, I propose that through neurology, sociopsychobiology, psychology, sociology and all the other humanities we discover the truth to our ancient or old genetic code. Because our minds have a certain set of predispositions and needs that can only be fulfilled through our social interactions. I propose that we seek out and learn to identify the missing components in our modern society.  Because we are missing so much in our day-to-day lives that we are being robbed of social actives that result in psychological triggers, which induce endorphins such as oxytocin, and dopamine. Meaning that our lives are not making us happy because they just can’t. We don’t know why is the travesty, we don’t understand why our brother is a drug addict, sister a sex addict, mother is a thief, father is a recluse, why so many millions upon billions of people are depressed and suffer from psychological disorders of every imaginable condition. The answer is that they are not receiving these, “magical social conditions” that make us happy people. Instead of seeing that the root of the problem lies within ourselves we search outside our selves for comfort and relief. The outlets that people find are insatiable and unending in their demand for a person’s time money and emotional energy. The obviously unhealthy outlets of the modern world are the addictions, others include obsession with work, church, school, excessive behaviors plague almost every person on this planet and every plagued person is an unhappy person. We live unhappy lives and breed unhappy lives all the while searching for some savior when we are the only ones who can save ourselves. A society that fosters love in every facet and experience from birth to death is the society that will have happy participants. This is the society that will have made an ancient society for a modern man. 

Nature vs. Nature and the Masculine and Feminine Ego's

Nurture vs. Nature is one of the largest arguments of all time and the argument has had many faces. Science will soon be and is eliminating this argument entirely. What we’re learning is that the argument is morphing from nurture vs. nature to nature and nature in as dependent and mutually exclusive events in a person’s life. I am both a minimalist and a maximalist. I am both an essentialists and a constructionist.

What we are learning about our species on a scientific level is that our brains are genetically far more complex and varied than the obvious physical appearance of genetics. Our unique brains that distinguishes our species in such a contrasting way form all the other species on this planet, is the catalyst of what will become our most complex form of scientific research into our species. Our brains are what caused us to walk upright, to make tool, to hunt, to survive. The most powerful research and new science into sociobiology, neurology is showing that of our minds vast array of differences is that the obvious prime directive is to survive and survival is impossible without a society to survive in. When our  species experienced our last wave of genetic mutation we were highly socially dependent individuals. Our offspring is the most dependent of any species, we require loving affectionate mothers, and supportive societies to raise our young. This shows conclusively that we are a social species and this is the turning point in the research of nurture vs. nature argument.

This means that above all our brains are genetically designed to adapt to many, if not all, social environments to survive. What is also true is that with our vast array of social adapatablility that we genetically inherited we also inherited a set of predispositions that can be, “triggered” from the environment. This is the environment and biological component but it gives more power to the socialization aspect of things. This means that a child raised in the most fortioius of envidorments will have all the correct genes triggered while a child in the most corrosive environment will have all the socially negative predispositions triggered. The child raised in the negative environment will be told it was his genes that caused the animal, that he was defective from birth and that he is doomed to a life of social anomaly, and deviance. This is simply untrue because what sociobiology is displaying is that the environment was the catalyst for triggering a genetically socially deviant personality.

What this all means for the masculine personality versus the feminine personality is that our minds were designed to adapt the social constructs that were presented from birth. However, the question still lies that how many genetic predispositions exist amongst men and women. What I believe is that the genetic predispositions are far greater from individual to individual rather than from men and women. Some women will have very contrasting predispositions from other women and those inclinations will far more resemble other men than women and vise a versa. I think the greatest biological difference that will effect psyche is that of hormonal variability for men and women, such as higher testosterone levels in men and higher estrogen levels in women. Other than that it is not a black and white picture, each individual was born with their own unique genetic coding for their brain that is more varied that a fingerprint.

                  What I consider to be a feminist is different that the widely held social fantasy of the notion. Feminist is defined to be a person that supports the equal rights and equal treatment of women. Society has a very different view on the subject viewing a feminist to be fanatical, wanting the oppression of men and the supremacy of women, that women want to rule the world and subject men and often times a feminist is viewed as a lesbian. This is simply not true and has a very socially corrosive effect for the women’s movement.

In conclusion I would like to bring to light an idea for society. What if women and men were allowed to be individuals and to explore the full potential of their unique genetic predispositions, to pursue their individuality without repercussion, to purse the measure of their happiness without inhibition or prohibition on every level from the social to the constitutional? What if society allowed people to be who they were inclined to be and fostered a nurturing environment for individual expression, what then would the world look like?

UnConflict Theory

As I read about Marx I realize that he had many genius ideas and with Engels the two were a philosophical force to be reckoned with. Like many sociologists he wasn’t quite on target with his predictions. Although I agree that some form of communism or socialism will eventually replace capitalism he failed to see the extent that capitalism would come to dominate this planet and become so corrosive in its environmental and social devastation. Another one of his philosophies that I think is incorrect is that of conflict theory. In ancient times the only way for social change was through bloody violent and irreprehensible violence that at times completely annihilated groups of people. I am a strong antagonist of conflict theory, rather I am a believer in peaceful movements and I believe that the only type of social change that is permanent is that of peaceful origins, women’s right, civil rights and such weren’t accomplished through blood shed and shouldn’t be. Gandhi freed India through peaceful means, Martin Luther King made massive progression through peaceful means and the women’s rights movement wasn’t done though masses of women disavowing themselves from their husbands who where vehicles of oppression and going on masculine killing sprees, rather peaceful demonstrations were the means by which women were allowed to vote and progress their rights as individuals. I believe that when a society comes to a place of enlightenment that the most powerful, most formidable means of true and comprehensive change is that of the people peacefully enforcing the new social standard. This is a process that must start with an enlightenment period where literature, including articles, books, movies, music and the like are freely distributed to the people so they can see that a social movement is necessary. Then that group of people can get together and peacefully boycott their movement. At times the greedy will want to force people into submission through violent means and in those cases physical defense should be a last resort. Global pacifism needs to be the political priority whilst creating these peaceful movements of progression. True social change in our modern world cannot take place through violence; the old forces of habit will eventually reinstate themselves and slowly revert to the old system before the violence. Look at Iraq for example the country was invaded and over 600,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the ensuing bloody crusade to enlist democracy. Although I am in favor of democracy in opposition to their form of government I would rather the people be the ones through peaceful means liberate themselves, because as we are seeing in Afghanistan and Iraq the old system is slowly reenlisting itself. I wouldn’t debate that some powerful change has taken place in those country’s but a much more powerful movement is taking place in Libya and other Islamic countries because they are making the choice for change. The same concept can be applied to simple human psychology in that the dependent addict cannot be freed of their addiction through parents enablement, the addict must see the need for change themselves, and make that individual inspired action to change. And so too must the people under any of the array of humanities oppressive institutions. Freedom, that all elusive and nebulous concept, must be in the mind and heart of the individual and collectively of the people, before it can be embraced or even felt. 

Suicide Part 2

Some people make the argument that suicide is a personal choice and this is my argument to their small-minded thinking. I would never contest that it was an individual’s decision, however, personal decision is not an item of consideration when it comes to cause, because cause comes before effect. After cause has taken place then effect or choice comes into understanding, however, effect (choice to commit suicide) cannot exist without cause, the first line of consideration. After cause has taken place the effect is inevitable.  For example if I choose to steal bread they are saying that its was my choice that lead me to steal the bread and I am saying that; first it was the starvation that lead me to make the choice. The cause was hunger, the cause and the choice were separate and in sequence, I would not choose to steal the bread without the hunger. Someone would not choose to commit suicide without the cause. Obviously, any intelligent person would not venture into the realm of choice being so vast; which I see is the premise of the choice argument, they don’t want to consider the cause, they want to write it off as a personal choice and therefore personal problem. This is short sighted and fails to address the reality of cause. Cause is also quite different from impact, which they say is the cause component. When a parent beats their child and the child grows up to become violent, the beating did not impact the violent behavior, it generated the violence it is the cause. Impact is watering down the effect of a series of events and the degree of influence that has on a person’s psyche. Socio psychology shows that the imperative years of development are the ages of birth to 5yrs old, the time in a persons life that is the determining factor of the degree of emotional intelligence, and psychological health that individual will possess. Is it the choice of the 3 year old to be beaten, assaulted, and unloved? Did that 3 yr. old choose to have certain neurological pathways carved in their brain as a result of the abuse and violence they experienced? Those neurological pathways are very real and definable and result in depression and emotional sickness of every variety and those conditions are so painful that some people choose to self terminate but the choice came many years after the cause, the trauma. The emotional trauma is the cause of suicide not the choice to end the pain. If I fall, hit my head and suffer from a concussion, did I choose for the brain trauma? The physical trauma of brain damage is as real and identifiable as the trauma caused by early childhood abuse. The fact that someone would call it a choice is absolutely absurd to me, as if a person would choose emotional sickness.