Basic HTML Version
problems of their own" (p.tge xii).
Why this jumble and turmoil in our
social world? Why thc paradox bctween
stunning accomplishments in the physi–
cal world and the chaos in the social
world?
The answer is clear when wc examine
the method by which answers are
sought.
In our relations with the physical
world, scientists have developed a
method of attack - a scientific method
- which searches for valid conclusions
based on
LAW.
In the social world,
no
S!tch
rmified
atlt1ck
011
social prob/ems
has been developed. Here we are at the
merey of unfounded opinion, arbi trary
authority, ignorant dogma.
Can
the
Scientific Method
Be Used?
Many social scientists reject thc idea
that the scientific method can be applied
to the human social dilemma. The very
idea
of law or absolute truth in the
social sphere causes many educators and
sociologists to recoil in horror.
Sociologist Robert M. Maclver, when
speaking of teaching the humanities,
exhjbits the typical appalling fright of
qogma - evidencing fear that any set
of social rules could thrust us into
another dark age of superstition.
He says,
"No one shal/ tearh as
though he had the u'hole trtJth oc
the
final formula about anything." Of
social scientists, Maclver said, "they
must str ive forevcr toward the goal of
final certitude that is
FOREVER DENIED
to them" (
Po/itio rmd Sociel).
Essays
of Robert M. Maclver, edited by David
Spitz, New York, Atherton Press, 1969,
pp.
6, 16).
The result of such thinking? No last–
ing, practica! solutions to
(/JI)
problems.
Crime is increasing. But experts do
not know how to curb it. Our youth are
oo a drug and sex hingc. Social workers
often do not know how to make respon–
sible citizens out of them. Nations go to
war to settle difficulties. No one secms
to know
how
to bring the world peacc.
Personal debt is increasing. Few seem
to find their way out
of
financia! worry.
On national levels, the economic picturc
is bleak. But economists do not know
how to solve continuing inAation.
We incrcase in technological control
of nature - manipulating the very
building blocks of our
~.:co-systcm.
Yet,
humanity is threatened with possible
extinction by
ma11-made
pollution.
And so it goes - in every ficld of
endeavor.
Tmth and Poli tics
In one of the most •mportant fields
of human conduct - government
it
has been said that truth and politics do
not mix well.
In an article "Truth .Uld Politics,"
by Hannah Arendt, of the University
of Chicago, it was said: "Truth and
politics are on rather bad terms with
each other, and no onc, as far as
J
know, has ever counted truthfulness
tEFT
TO
RIGHT, U.P.I., U.P.I.,
Ambossodor
Co//ege,
Wide World, Ambossodor
College,
Wido World
among thc política! virtues. Lies havc
always been regarded as neccssary and
justifiable tools not only of the politi–
cian's or the demagogue's but also of
the statesman's trade"
(Politica/ Theor;
rmd Social Cha11ge,
David Spitz, Editor,
Atherton Press, New York, 1967, p. 3).
This same author then carne to thc
astounding conclusion - which others
have also reached - that by lying we
can safeguard the approach to truth.
With this kind of reasoniog, it is no
wonder that cvery idea, thought, con–
ccpt, program is suspect.
The common man
knotl'J
politicians,
statesmen, world leaders often do not
m<.:.tn what they say. We live in a world
of
líe~.
mistrust, hopcless cont radictions,
social dcspair.
We are told that cigarettes are
strongly suspected of contributing to
cancer, but magazines print colorful
cigarette advertisements. We are told
chemicals in food can hacm the body,
but proccssors put them in foods,
nevertheless.
We are told "Thou shalt not kili."
But a military strategist says it is neces–
sary to kill 40 million of the enemy.
Ordinary people do oot know what
to believc. The experts have no solu–
tion. Nations go from crisis to crisis.
Experts disagree on what is the best -
th<.: right- cotme to take in economics,
in social issues, in defense, in politics,
in health.
What has bcen the result? An old