Analyse et pilotage des politiques publiques

2014

Revue française de science politique

2009

hcommons.org, 2024

Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of the time. - Voltaire Mannheim and Historical Synergy: Mannheim's argument was pretty much common sense - that the economic - political reality would be a profound influence on worldviews and the social sciences - philosophy, psychology, political science - and even spiritual and religious views. Common sense would seem to dictate that peoples' worldviews and orientations would necessarily adopt and adjust to the economic-political “reality” and “the physical world” they live in. Historically that has proved to be a good rule of thumb - though not perfect pattern as it were. Mannheim's worldview was in line with many other philosophers of his time - Nietzsche, Gasset, etc. And as Voltaire observed, “Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of the time.” Unfortunately, even with scholars and scientists today that is too true. For perspective, there is a big difference between reason and rational analysis. Rational analysis is viewed by some as inherently good. Rational analysis is a tool – used by the Nazi’s to improve the efficiency of their death camps or by scientists to improve food production. Similarly, there is a huge difference between the Age of Reason and this new Age of Materialism. The widespread view of truth as conditional and in part a product of social convention (Nietzsche or circumstances (Gasset), materialist thinking and methodology is intolerant and absolute because of the emphasis on quantification Esther, the administrator for a "neuroscience" FB group, sent me a message stating, “Esther ************ Charles Peck Jr "there are theorists from years ago who were not as scientific as more modern theorists. That is because we follow the scientific method and therefore our theories are raised from scientific deduction through the empirical method. Our practices today are not just cooked up in simple observations or hearsay. Practices and approaches are not philosophies but scientifically repeatable theories and laws (not just hunches and hypothesis).” From discussions, I would say that view of science in terms of an absolute is common and widespread. Nietzsche, Gasset and Mannheim were discarded by the new materialists. They also ignore modern neuroscientists like Damasio. Antonio Damasio, the famous neuroscientist states, in Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (2005), “I am skeptical of science’s presumption of objectivity and definitiveness. I have difficulty in seeing scientific results, especially in neurobiology, as anything but provisional approximations.” Materialist Methodology “severely restricts and limits the analyses that can be performed The bottom line is materialists ‘came into power’ and became the dominant force in the academic institution – and brought with them the argument that quantification makes science infallible. From a purely scientific view – it is the opposite as McGilChrist points out. As Claudia Nielsen pointed out, the psychiatrist McGilChrist observes that “The scope of inquiry and understanding of the Materialist Doctrine with its rigid adherence to the actually arbitrary principle of quantification and over-emphasis on physiological characteristics is severely restricted and limited in the analyses that can be performed.” Half of human conscious is not quantifiable: hope, art, dreams, music, poetry, true love, awe-wonder, freedom, ideals, justice, - not to mention death. I would briefly question that how a methodology – described by McGilChrist as a “rigid adherence to quantification” – which is appropriate to physics or chemistry got applied to human consciousness is mindboggling. I would add that – if you take a close look at the social sciences, the materialist methodology has generated a rather serious from of researcher bias – no viable form of social consciousness, no spiritual and religious beliefs as a drive and motivation, no “community” in the “universally accepted definition of religion”, no readily apparent prosocial norms inherent in psychology theories (i.e social cognitive theory – weak on motivation)