"Sociology and every other social science, teaches that all values are subjective".

"Is the truth worth pursuing?" -- "Scientifically speaking? No!"

I have never read such gross misrepresentation. David Long, you are a liar.

From Alfred Kroeber at the beginning of the 20th century through George Tamarin to Marc Hauser today, anthropologists and psychologists have revealed the common cross-cultural foundation of human morality.

There *are* universal, instinctive moral values which are common to the vast majority of people across cultures. It is precisely the social sciences which have demonstrated it. For you to suggest that sociology teaches unadulterated moral relativism is an outright lie.

Subjective, "cultural" values -- which change over time as well as across cultures -- do exist, and indeed at their extremes lead to rather perverse behaviour (which, if it were not "cultural", would be regarded as psychopathic). But the vast majority of members of any culture, when asked to make "reference" moral judgments which are outside the dictates of their cultural norm, will make the same decisions.

Moreover, science by its nature has come from an "enlightened" background. The cultures which fostered scientific development have always been those which are expanding, malleable and receptive to challenges to their basic ideas: the ancient Greeks and Chinese, the Arabs in the middle ages, and the globalising Western civilisation since the 15th century.

Scientists are, of course, well aware of the history of science and their own cultural backgrounds and therefore almost universally progressive. The values of science are NOT relativist, but receptive: ready to examine new evidence, to hear testimony on its merits, and accept "new" truths as they are discovered.

Therefore, there *is* a morality of science. Science depends on a certain moral stance and scientists, by and large, will advocate that moral stance.

It includes tolerance of opposing opinions and of mere "cultural" differences, especially where common humanity can be recognised.

Hmmm... I would have thought calling someone a liar for a differing opinion shows very little tolerance, for a liar can no longer entertain any reasonable of fair discussion. It seems you’ve taken rather a moral stance xoddam, rather than an objective one – but that’s your call.

Any knowledgeable physicist will testify that, at a basic level, science is amoral (Science cannot testify to what is is good and bad) - it has to be in order to progress. It can’t be constrained by anything beyond what it itself can prove through observation, experimentation and duplication

David Long,

a thoughtful article. Why do we as citizens, need to even consider "multicultural policies" anyway? A democratic state has no role in promoting cultural diversity, especially with taxpayers' money. The natural and understandable desire of immigrants to bring their cultures with them has been institutionalised as multiculturalism.

One might argue whether social science is a science at all.

While there seems to be plenty of theories being put forward by social scientists, I don’t know of any scientific laws that have ever been established by social scientists, and so much of social science research has now sunk into a murky mire of advocacy research.

It is being said that multiculturalism is of benefit to society, but is this a highly reliable or mostly accurate statement, or is this only an initial theory that has yet to be rigorously tested and proven.

With the demise of the hard sciences in Australian schools and education systems, the soft sciences are gradually taking over and filling the vacuum, but the soft sciences seem to have minimal interest in the scientific method.

HRS:

The 'soft' sciences are addressing areas where the scientific method cannot be applied. So why would they have an interest in it? They use other methods and models for approaching their work.

Whether you want to disagree with the semantic connotations of referring to these as sciences is another discussion. But you seem to be suggesting that because they don't use the scientific method they are somehow less valid. Incorrect.

"Hard" science can be, and has continually been, used throughout history to justify evil. For instance, a rather convincing and scientific claim could have been made that prior to the emancipation of African American slaves in the US, slaves would be better off financially and with regard to physical health by remaining under the domination of white owners rather than being freed. It was not 'hard' science that lead to the liberation of the slave.

“this attempt to preserve old cultures in the New World is superficial because it ignores the fact that real differences among men are based on real differences in fundamental beliefs about good and evil, about what is highest, about God.”

And this statement ignores the fact that differing cultural beliefs about good and evil are influenced by and reflected in a people’s culture. By understanding things like dress, food, rituals etc etc we can gain a better understanding of these beliefs and what informs them. Really David, pick up a book or two on what these Social Scientists are studying. Try and understand it a little better yourself first before you set out to denigrate it. In order to talk about something, it’s generally good to know what it is you’re talking about first.

“Multiculturalism which, at its most practical and basic level, promotes the cultures of all peoples including those who do not embrace the equality of their fellow citizens,”

That is blatantly false. We have laws to prevent discrimination and exploitation, amongst other things. We have ‘basic rights’ that are applicable to all and that serve as an underpinning for the operation of society. Rights that are designed specifically to allow differing ‘cultures’ whether they be religious, ethnic, sexual or otherwise. People are free to practice their ‘culture’, but they are NOT free to infringe on those rights of other people to do the same. THIS is what the American Republic is ‘supposed’ to stand for and hasn’t since its inception. Perhaps in time the world will see it in practice.

Quite right relda, it was uncivil of me to make a personal accusation. I should have settled for disputing the matter of fact.

If you are reading, David, my apologies.

I actually agree completely with your thesis that "At its highest, participation in a democratic republic requires an abandonment of every political opinion inconsistent with liberal democracy."

I should heed the proverb: "In the midst of great joy, do not promise anyone anything. In the midst of great anger, do not answer anyone 's letter."

My anger is not so great today, but my fear is.

Jakubowicz once said that Australia is a country trying to avoid a racist future.

I subscribe to Long's thesis, but he doesn't argue it here. The bulk of his article reads like a belligerent rhetorical attempt to undermine the policy goal of eliminating racism. His dismissal of the ethos of tolerance of cultural difference takes the high ground in preparation for a barrage against whatever cultures he doesn't like, *on the grounds of their difference*.

In addition to its misrepresentation of the state of moral philosophy, the teachings of the social sciences and scientific ethics in general, the article employs a bunch of cheap shots ("The copyright owner" repeated five times [English teachers have no end of trouble with essays lifted from websites], "No explanation is given.", "What must be embarrassing...") and a spectacular series of irrelevantly-dropped philosopher's names from Socrates to Hamlet to Rousseau to Hegel to Bloom.

As for the morality of science, relda, and hard vs. soft sciences, HRS, *all* science is ultimately hard. Every meaningful question about the world we live in has a meaningful scientific answer, even if it remains unknown. The "hard" sciences of biology, neurology and ethology are beginning to provide very solid underpinnings to the so-called "soft" sciences of psychology, anthropology and sociology.

Physics is not the science to ask for knowledge of good and evil, because morality is something that has meaning only for sentient actors. Ethology and psychology are the sciences of sentience. Eve's apple is, at long last, ripe for their plucking.

Stabinthedark,
If the scientific method cannot be applied to some area of study, then the word science cannot be applied to that area of study.

Calling something a science is a misnomer if the scientific method is not being applied.

I could call myself a social scientist, and I could make a statement that everyone throughout the world speaks the same language, eats the same food, and has the same dress, and without applying the scientific method, there is no way of verifying or disproving my statement.

Without the scientific method being applied, I can make any type of statement I like just to suit myself.

Maybe they should teach students about this little factor in schools, starting about grade 3.

xoddam,
Science (or from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge) is an observer, where the Scientific Method is used to help organize thoughts and procedures with these 5 steps:

• Observation/Research

• Hypothesis

• Prediction

• Experimentation

• Conclusion

It is also quite legitimately broken down and classed into the following:
- Natural sciences, the study of the natural world, and
- Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and society
Long is quite correct is asserting, “sociology and every other social science, teaches that all values are subjective” for it is merely adhering to the scientific method – anything else just isn’t science.

Science is a tremendous tool,“The free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life.”
-Albert Einstein

However, from ‘The Thomas Paine Corner’ (http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=245) we have an example of moral judgement, “…Despite the great strides that seem to make man omnipotent, with complete control over nature, seldom does he realize that he is unable to control his own mind. As a result of this, lack of self-control, extravagant lifestyles and the universally accepted capitalistic model of reckless progress have caused severe impact on nature. So the greatest challenge faced by the green movements and environmentalists around the world is to convince society of the importance of fundamental changes to engender a less exploitative system...”.

I’m not a rabid ‘greenie’ but I suspect, as many do, there might just be something wrong...

Einstein, a genius and also somewhat of a moral/religious philosopher also said, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

1. STABLIN the Dark - "We have laws to prevent discrimination and exploitation".

Only while we have a progressive thinking, Western democracy in Government.

If a darker less tolerant regressive culture every gets the numbers to control government you can kiss your anti-discrimination and exploitation laws etc. goodbye.

2. "It was not hard science that led to the liberation of the slave.
No, it was the fact that the territorial resources of the northern American farmers(crops etc.) couldnt be sold and were left rotting or dying in the fields. Because the South undercut their prices in a trade war by using slave labour. Like all wars in history. If you study what was to be gained from them. It was all about territorial resources and the quality of life they provide. The difference between poverty and prosperity.

HRS: "Calling something a science is a misnomer if the scientific method is not being applied."

As if you'd know. In your prollfic rants to this forum you've never shown the slightest indication that you understand science of any description. [Hint: what do you mean by the 'scientific method'?]

This is an incredibly stupid article, even by OLO's standards. If David Long had done the slightest bit of research beyond his prejudices, he'd know that the definition and elaboration of culture extends far beyond his fanciful "gentleman, a man whose mind had been cultivated by his education, specifically, by a liberal education".

Apparently David Long is a lawyer. With such skills of research, logic and persuasion I wouldn't be confident of him defending a parking ticket.

Relda states that 2 rules of Scientific Method are-:
OBSERVATION AND PREDICTION

It is taught in schools that tolerance will prevent wars and ethnic cleansing.

1.OBSERVATION of history shows that it was not intolerance that was the motive for wars but the need to control territory and territorial resources.
PREDICTION would be that history will keep on repeating itself as we have not yet learnt this truth.

2.OBSERVATION says that the Germans killed six million Jews because they wanted them gone from German territory because they felt territorially threatened by them.
PREDICTION is that because we believe what happened in Germany was solely because of intolerance we have learnt nothing from it and so we still do not know how to stop it happening again.

Teaching that tolerance will save multicultural societies from what happened in Germany does not fit with 2rules of scientific methodology
and so something that has not been proven is being taught as fact.

Sorry sharkfin but that isn't exactly true. The Northern States used slave labour in their predominately industrial society. While the Southern States as predominately agrarian society could not survive with out a source of cheap labour. Before the slave the early Americas were built on British debtors living in tenure to work off their debts and transportation. The revolution and a developing Canada and Australia put paid to that source of cheap labour and the farmers took up the habits of the gentle class of having coloured slaves. Trade with the Caribbean and the knowledge of established barracoons gave easy access and inexpensive transportation. Pretty much the Southern States were dependent on a single crop, cotton, a labour intensive crop, for their wealth and financial survival. The idea that the North did not use slaves is a misnomer, like the Civil War was fought to free the slave. Nice thought but not the whole truth.

*SUSTAINED APPLAUSE*....for Sharkfin.... who seemingly alone cut thorugh the 'crap, woffle and semantics' and went straight to the CORE issue of the human dilemna and the central problem of 'tolerance' and 'multi'culturalism.

THE MAJOR PROBLEM of using the idea of "all men are created equal and have inalienable rights" is when this is applied to the area of competing cultures. If culture B (newcomers) practices certain things, and these are anathema to Culture A (Existing culture) in the context of migration, then who is to decide WHO'S inalienable rights and equality are to prevail ?
If culture B practices female genital mutilation, and you ask a mother from that culture if this is a good thing, they will invariably answer YES and what business is it of yours to question it..it's OUR culture.
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=755&Itemid=0 (*WARNING* graphic content)

RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE is a good thing, but if the 'new' religion is not tolerant of the prevailing or existing, to the point of screaming its doctrines at the ANU interupting classes..well.. do we tolerate it ? not a chance..as RAGE BOY found out. (I think he looks like the now rather infamous 'rageboy' from 'rent-a-radical' Pty Ltd in Pakistan)
http://islammonitor.org/

So, clearly mens equality and inalienable rights include the right NOT to be harassed, or mutilated and to 'preventing' such outrages in your community.

As long as we understand this, all will be well.

THE DANGER though, is that if alien cultures are left unchecked, we will gradually find a dilution of our own to the point where the water is so muddy you cannot tell one from the other and the idea of unacceptabilty of one over the other will be academic and contested.

Undoubtedly, perhaps a little ironically, the quite fathomable logic behind the ideal of Multiculturalism may result in legal outcomes not at all surprising – as the ‘Official Richard Dawkins website’ points out. Even if you aren’t much of a Dawkins admirer, David, maybe you’ll consider this a worthy addition to your repertoire - or perhaps not, on reading the whole article :)

Given the judge is a woman, one almost wonders, “Is the article for real - or does it actually demonstrate multiculturalism as something quite inequitable?”:

“Do you believe in the rights of women, or do you believe in multiculturalism? A series of verdicts in the German courts in the past month, have shown with hot, hard logic that you can't back both. You have to choose.

The crux case centres on a woman called Nishal, a 26-year-old Moroccan immigrant to Germany with two kids and a psychotic husband. Since their wedding night, this husband beat the hell out of her. She crawled to the police covered in wounds, and they ordered the husband to stay away from her. He refused. He terrorised her with death threats.

So Nishal went to the courts to request an early divorce, hoping that once they were no longer married he would leave her alone. A judge who believed in the rights of women would find it very easy to make a judgement: you're free from this man, case dismissed.

But Judge Christa Datz-Winter followed the logic of multiculturalism instead. She said she would not grant an early divorce because - despite the police documentation of extreme violence and continued threats - there was no "unreasonable hardship" here.

Why? Because the woman, as a Muslim, should have "expected" it, the judge explained. She read out passages from the Koran to show that Muslim husbands have the "right to use corporal punishment". Look at Sura 4, verse 34, she said to Nishal, where the Koran says he can hammer you. That's your culture. Goodbye, and enjoy your beatings..."

http://richarddawkins.net/article,966,How-multiculturalism-is-betraying-women,Johann-Hari-The-Independent

Perhaps the Australian brand of MC simply doesn't follow a similar logic...

The taking up of the socialist idea of multiculturalism was not to eradicate racism. The socialist championed MC as a way to rule society with out having to be elected government. The highest moral standard of victim is being set by the politically correct and fellow apologist. Australia has become a land of victims unable to all equally re-establish culturally in Australia what they fled a mere couple of years ago. Multiculturalism is the prime tool of cultural marxist to destroy that which they feel is theirs by right, but can't have. Power over others with out having to go to the people to ask for the privilege to govern. No democratic nonsense for them. They'll use the back door, thank you very much.

Sobering, relda, thanks. Defence of liberty (against tribalism) is the only justification for multiculturalism! I f-cking-well hope multiculturalism doesn't follow the logic of those German judges *anywhere*. They're compensating for Germany's historical xenophobic hysteria, I suppose, but they may as well use "Aryan moral concepts" to extenuate the Holocaust as say "Anatolian moral concepts" extenuate wife-murder!

Were we at cross-purposes before? I don't dispute scientific method, nor even classification into "natural" and "social" sciences (if only because people are less predictable than inanimate objects, plants and even other animals), but that demarcation is no impenetrable boundary.

As for that claim: "... man ... is unable to control his own mind", it's rubbish. *All* the manipulations of man [sic] begin in his mind. Moreover, nothing about the mind puts it outside the reach of scientific understanding. Its basic morality is not territorial but tribal and humane; each of us is free to decide where our "tribal" loyalty lies.

Sharkfin, war and genocide are not inevitable; they are premeditated crimes which rulers force upon the ruled using psychological manipulation. Most people are intelligent enough to understand that fighting and killing are the most wasteful acts we can commit; a prosperous peace is always preferable. War is a cynical act of capitalists and madmen. It is *sold* using lies, rhetoric and tribalism. Modern war is theft of a higher order than mere lust for land, loot and women.

War fever is curable by exposing lies and broadening tribal loyalty to humanism.

"Territorial fear" of Jews in Germany and throughout Europe was manufactured by propaganda justified in explicitly religious terms. Jews in Germany *never* posed a territorial threat, nor even an economic one, and any intelligent 20th-century German knew it as well as Australians do. It was no justified fear but insane extremes of patriotic fervour that made anti-semitism law.

I might add that most "cultural" aberrations from humanism, such as slavery and the subjection of women, are likewise the result of self-perpetuating propaganda, usually religious in nature.

aqvarivs, I gave you the benefit of the doubt before. Now I'm convinced you're a nut.

"It was no justified fear but insane extremes of patriotic fervour that made anti-semitism law."

Bingo. Thank you xoddam. I was waiting for my post restriction to expire so I could say exactly what you said - and it was said rather eloquently too.

It is through tolerance and understanding of other cultures - which is encouraged by direct contact with them - that people learn there is little founding to the irrational fears and prejudices that a select few use to inflame hatred and war.

"A series of verdicts in the German courts in the past month, have shown with hot, hard logic that you can't back both. "

What a ridiculous (to the point of being comical) statement.

Relda, using the decision of one particular judge as a basis for your claim is as ridiculous as me suggesting sex is wrong because it leads to rape. In the example you provided the woman's individual liberty was infringed upon and the law should have recognised that. She has a right to live her life the way she chooses within the law, without coersion - physical or otherwise - by others.

I need to let this debate go without interruption, but I should explain one point.
I should explain why the social scientists do not make value judgements. The methodology of the social sciences is positivism. Positivism distinguishes between facts and values. Facts are objective and capable of being proven by the scientific method while values are subjective, a matter of taste or sensation. It is impossible to prove that one man’s values are better or worse than another man’s. Auguste Comte said that all values are equal.
The need to distinguish between facts and values arose because of the universal 18th century belief that the scientific method’s successes in identifying cause and effect of matter could be repeated for mankind. The cause of human unhappiness and the conditions necessary for the best political regime only needed the application of science. “Matter” however, did not have free choice. The laws of science identified the laws that governed matter's behaviour because it could not change its mind.
Mankind, on the other hand had free will. If every human could change his mind, strictly speaking there could never be determinative laws of human behaviour. Accordingly, behaviour was said to be the result of the passions, not human reason and free choice. It was argued that human passion was the cause and human reason the instrument of the passions. Passions are always referred to as “more” or “less” and hence seemed suited to the application of modern science.
The fact that people did what they thought was right or good or beneficial, that is, in accordance with rational choice was disposed of by the assumption that these were only values and hence, subjective tastes.
All the social sciences adopted the positivist methodology and the “fact value” distinction. Social scientists can not make value judgements because value judgements can not be proved by the scientific method. One man’s values are equal to any other person’s values.

David Long- "mankind on the other hand had free will. It was argued that human passion was the cause and human reason the instrument."

Put in other terms that would read- basic survival instinct(human passion)is the cause and human intelligence the instrument(the means of obtaining what is needed for survival). In other words the survival instinct is in the drivers seat and the intellect obeys.
We largely obey our sexual mating instincts and our need for survival resources exactly as nature programmed us to do.

You may say; but we have control over our sexual instincts. OK then lets bring in a law decreeing that no sex is to be permitted in Australia for the next 12months. You see we only have so much ability to control our basic instincts we cannot shut them off permanently.

The territorial instinct (the need for resources like food etc to survive) is also a basic human instinct and cannot be permanently shut off by means of advocating tolerance in the face of ever mounting territorial threat.

or for some it's a matter of accepting everything on it's surface and being unwilling to look deeper into motivation. Control issues. Multiculturalism is a control issue not a social expectation. When the politicians breeze through my neighbourhood saying how much they understand and respect our cultural values and a vote for them will insure blissful serenity we all smile. We Turks, Vietnamese, Greeks, Iranians, Irish, Scottish, Indian, Sikh, Chinese, Hungarians, Italians, etc., etc.,look at each other and smile. The game is afoot and we are well aware of the manipulation, speak about it, and go back to the subjects that really impinge on our community success. Our jobs, our children's education, the cost of food, housing, petrol. None of us worry about the next cultural event. It's not something we expect our governing bodies to be concerned with. How we dress and our hairstyles and food choice and dance structure we can share amoung ourselves with out it being mandated by policy. Well perhaps I shouldn't have spoke so soon. Let me just pop down to my local office of cultural and ethnic minorities and see what todays dictate is.
Some of us choose independent thought rather than those who choose to believe what they are programmed to believe by the socialist and the infiltration of socialism into our political system.

DAVID LONG said in his recent post: (quoting some social scientist)

"It is impossible to prove that one man’s values are better or worse than another man’s."

STABinTHEdark said:

"It is through tolerance and understanding of other cultures - which is encouraged by direct contact with them - that people learn there is little founding to the irrational fears and prejudices that a select few use to inflame hatred and war."

Now...Stabby... do you by any chance see the problem here?

Your offering has a nice peaceful ring to it.. no question about that.
But based on Davids quote, (which is entirely true) one group may have 'values' which are inTENSELY opposed to the values of another group.

If one group (the prevailing culture in a country) believes in the Rule of law and Democractic freedoms, but another group believes that "The World and all that is in it belongs to Allah and his apostle" and further that they are COMMANDED to "fight those who believe not in Allah and the last day... until they do, or pay a tax"

Then.... we have a serious and insurmountable clash of cultures. There can only be ONE outcome. WAR. Like wages, they don't come every day, but usually they do come.

Now..there are a couple of solutions to this.

1/ The 'fight them' group changes it's view to a more 'tolerant' one, and:
a) Abandons and repudiates the foundation in their holy book which calls for this militant advancing of their interests.
b) They harden their hearts, we have a war, and last man standing rules.

But the idea that we should 'tolerate and understand' such cultural differences, and that this will result in peace and tranquility, is to put it nicely DELUDED. :)
Here is why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf1YBoMC-oE&mode=related&search=

Notice how he describes "No Kaffir is innocent".... hence.. when they decry 'terrorism' and say "Islam does not believe in the killing of 'innocent's" ...now you know the meaning of this code.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaaZ1dbukYs&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLK1Xpc7SMQ New York.....

So this doesn’t merely become another exercise in Islamaphobia, I’ll quote the following from Alia Hogben, director general of the Canadian Council for Muslim Women (CCFM),Feb 2004:

"If not based on values and laws that are shared by all Canadian men and women, pure multiculturalism is dangerous and can bring the division of the various ethnic groups. We are also aware that extreme forms of cultural relativism undermine the common Canadian identity. We support none of the groups that not just insist on the safeguard of their original cultural identity but seem to promote changes that could damage the common values. Unfortunately, some people believe that multiculturalism gives them the right to shift the balance between the celebration of diversity and the reinforcement of the Canadian common identity" (healthy round of applause).

The above was written in reaction to Canada’s former Ontario Attorney General, feminist lawyer and defender of multiculturalism, Marion Boyd, who astounded the Canadian community by recommending that Islamic tribunals be allowed to use Shari’a law to settle family disputes in that province.

The German experience is certainly not an isolated one - just takes a slightly different form.

Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, denounced the former attorney general's report as "multiculturalism run amok."

Multiculturalism will lead, when you take it seriously, to legal pluralism and that's precisely the kind of compartmentalized society that we would all hope to avoid. Fortunately, most Australians take tolerance and pluralism more seriously than a politically correct MC.

So, are we being rational or merely emotional? – I’d suggest, most lose control to become less rational and highly emotional on the subject of MC. Rather than to merely offer our ‘saccharine opinions’ perhaps it is really is, after all, better to ask “What is virtue? What is vice?” :)

David Boaz, Thank you for your kind words, I always enjoy being on these forums with you and some of the old regulars.

Aqavaris- Your article on the Socialist lefts reasons for promoting MC not being to eradicate racism; was very perceptive and brilliantly expressed.

Incidently I did know that the North of America had slaves, I was referring to the timeframe after that when they tried to stop slavery in the south. I had not done my homework on the industrialisation of the north bit. Having just done some reading on the Wikepedia I would still assert that the reason for the civil war was territorial.
11 Southern States actually decided to seceed from the North when Abraham Lincoln threatened to invade them to shut down slavery. They wanted to Govern themselves and their own states or territories to maintain the prosperity of those territories under slavery. You cant get more territorial than that. A seperatist movement. How many bloodbaths have we seen over that in modern times.

Sharkfin, thanks. It's difficult to post to a subject that on it's face is socially seductive, and that few see the treacherous underpinnings eating away at our democracy and the universality of the expression of law with in our borders. A land where exception to the rule becomes the rule.
"Facts are difficult to deal with when they conflict with theory. And before changing theories most human beings will spend long periods of time pretending that the facts don't exist, hoping that the facts will magically go away, or denying that the facts are important. Only if the facts are very painful and very persistent will they deal with the fundamental inconsistencies in their world view." - Lester Thurow

Yes. The American Civil War has been pretty much been rewritten to be a focus for emancipation of the black slave in the South. Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation certainly altered the political direction of the war but, was not the reason for it's beginning. The 'Civil War' started in defence of the application of States rights and the American Constitution as an arm of American government having powers above the office of the President. Which Lincoln removed and so changed the American system of government from a decentralised States driven 'Constitutional' government to the centralised Federal system of today. Effectively removing the Union part of the United States.
In truth the 'South' would have willingly done away with slavery had they had a mechanical alternative to take up the labour intensive tasks involved with cotton farming and to a lesser extent tobacco and sugar cane. The war started in 1861 but, the issue of 'Southern' States Rights started back in 1828 and with Calhoun's Nullification Crisis. Hell. Maybe with the Constitution itself.

Lester Thurow is a well recognised academic in the field of management theory, his quote is perhaps timely, aqvarivs.

Those who fail to adjust their world view often wish to find only certainty. As Thurow paradoxically puts it, "[for the extremist or terrorist], the earthly world is not certain. The only certainty to be found is in a heavenly world. That certainty is very appealing to many in both the first and third worlds. The 9/11 terrorists used religion as their ideology. A few decades earlier, they would have used socialism as their ideology”.

BOAZ_David,

“But based on Davids quote, (which is entirely true) one group may have 'values' which are inTENSELY opposed to the values of another group.”

That is why one of the immutable underpinnings to society should be the understanding that one person cannot enforce their cultural beliefs on another. So while people are free not to eat pigs for example, they are NOT free to stop others from eating them. Any system worth its salt should be supported by a constitution that ensures certain individual rights are sacrosanct.

“If one group (the prevailing culture in a country) believes in the Rule of law and Democractic freedoms, but another group believes that "The World and all that is in it belongs to Allah and his apostle" and further that they are COMMANDED to "fight those who believe not in Allah and the last day... until they do, or pay a tax"”

Again another immutable underpinning should be separation of church and state. The right to practice religion free from persecution, but not the right to enforce it upon others.

“Notice how he describes "No Kaffir is innocent".... hence.. when they decry 'terrorism' and say "Islam does not believe in the killing of 'innocent's" ...now you know the meaning of this code.”

What you’re talking about is a gross distortion and misrepresentation of Islam by a minority, who were vastly less powerful about 4 years ago than they are now I might add. Nevertheless, I can certainly point you to plenty of frighteningly extreme Christian groups who are literally calling for nuclear holocaust. Are they representative of you David?

Nice one David Long, nice one.

Your response to the posts here referring to the 'methodology of social sciences is positivism'....'distingish between facts and values', is little more than intellectual codswallop raised to stratospheric proportions.

Still; culture difference/intolerance is playmate of the month at the moment, so why not bag multiculturalism by assessing it with analytical spin and academic theory to make this playmate an acceptable norm.

Thanks David for your reply.

Facts are indeed different beasts from values. Maintaining disinterest whilst seeking facts is vital.

The distinction was necessary for moral philosophers to make in the wake of the realisation that imposition of conscience by force was absurd. The secular state follows directly.

But strictly separating facts from values at all times precludes investigation and evaluation of either in terms of the other. One *chooses*, based on one's incentives and values, to study facts and to teach them. One *decides*, based on facts, what one's values are. Academic disinterest is not the same as a moral vacuum.

Absolute moral relativism is not the moral stance of real social scientists; it is a straw-man, boldly burned by rhetoric.

Free will, though remarkable, does not put the mind above scientific study. Humanity is a feature of the natural world.

The study of social science leads each student to make value judgments regarding human behaviour. On the whole those value judgments will be similar; divergences will be "cultural" (especially where prejudice is the norm) or, rarely, psychopathic.

(I'd elaborate, and define "psychopathic" in terms of evolution, but since there's a word limit I'll just name-drop. Kant and Aristotle are *both* right, the dichotomy is a false one).

I believe that people would universally have basically humanist values, if it were not for invalid prejudices regarding the inferiority (sub-humanity) of certain fractions of the human population. Certainly scientifically-educated people, whether or not they adhere to a religion, tend towards humanism.

Until facts -- scientifically determined -- are universally recognised to trump traditional religious and patriotic falsehoods, the idea that there are scientific truths concerning universal human values will get little exposure. Still, the facts themselves -- if not the values -- are there to be read from Bacon's book of nature.

I don't understand though whether you actually subscribe to the statement that

"One man’s values are equal to any other person’s values."

In the headline article this position is the anti-democratic moral void of multicultural propagandists; in your post here it's a truism. What is your position, actually?

What is it with you europeans that convinces you of your superiority over other civilisations. Because from where I am sitting you and your so called civilsation have been killing men women and children in the million in the name of racist idelogy, resources and religions views for over a thousand years.

The only thing european societies have spread over the last 300 years besides syphlis as a set of new idea's is "terror through the eye of a gun".

White propaganda set up an illegal gubberment without including us as the legal owners of this land, because in your arrogance you did not recognise our system of law or ownership, because it was different to yours. Then your so called democratic society wrote a set of principles that specifically "excluded Aboriginal people from our own land" and then put into place rules into law that allowed whites to steal more of our land where we have lived for thousands of years.

In regards to the american constitution, its a historical fact that it was not created by white people, in fact it original authors were native people's. Once in place it then took a further two hundred years to the civil rights movement days to give blacks and other coloured people rights, the ones Abraham Lincoln spoke about in his famous Gettysberg address.

And yes Australians have been willing to defend liberty, but only for the white race, Aboriginal /Torres Strait Islander's in the front line recieved nothing for their service. And that includes the dignity of being paid the same as white soldiers not directly involved in the fighting.

To make matters worst on half the pay of whites we were then made to pay for services through our taxes that we couldn't acess ourselves or our children. Now if this is what your so call society calls democracy, you know what you can do with it.

Yindin, Europeans did indeed commit all those crimes.

But please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Even as it acquired the resources of five continents and fought the bloodiest wars in history, European civilisation midwifed unprecedented intellectual progress.

This "progress" in philosophy and science is not something Europeans can arrogate to themselves. Other peoples would have done the same if history played out differently. It's something that could have, would have taken place in any human milieu that was open to change -- indeed forced to accept change -- from within as it amassed wealth and power. It happened for the Chinese in the past (and again in China now), for Greece and Rome, for the Arabs as jihad swept across North Africa. Great civilisations are by their nature born shamefully in blood and conquest.

We've done very well out of conquering and stealing and gouging and trading. But like Alexander, having run out of world, it's time for a rest.

Our civilisation is still steeped in unjustifiable prejudice. The advances we have made in understanding the natural world permit us -- now -- to understand the factual error of this prejudice without surrendering wealth or the material gain of technology. We are at the point of being able to choose, now, to pursue sustainable development in solidarity with all humankind. It's very idealistic -- we might as easily choose, with our present leadership, to cling to the traditional "Genesis 1.28" arrogance and self-confidence which has served us so well. That way madness lies.

It is necessary now for industrial civilisation (still presently dominated by rich bastards of European extraction, though that is changing) to accept the limitations of its resources and its pollution sinks, and to treasure what remains in the wild world. It is equally vital for us to recognise the fundamental humanity of the people with whom we share the planet, and to share its bounty fairly.

Failure to do the one will lead to catastrophic economic and ecological collapse.
Failure to do the other will lead to a diminishment of our own humanity.

As far as civilization goes, Yindin, Sigmund Freud (a deceased European Elder) wrote, “The first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization.”

Remember also, those on OLO often consider themselves amongst the most civilized..

Whilst culture has always preceded civilization, many primitive cultures have been destroyed in its path – the aboriginal culture, however, where ‘the earth ‘owns’ us and not we the earth’ will one day return.

And the wind shall say, "Here were decent godless people;
Their only monument the asphalt road
And a thousand lost golf balls."
~T.S. Eliot

Hi Yindin... nice to hear from an indigenous bloke (?)

ur right.. there was a lot of cultural arrogance and superiority attitude among the early Europeans who came here.

Permit me please to say also though, if it were not the Brits..it would have been the Germans, Portugese, Dutch, Japanese.. SUMbody would have taken advantage of these wide open spaces in the name of their 'civilization'.

Sadly, your mob did not kill every white skin which came here on the spot.. as many indigenous groups now know..that was a big mistake.

In the long run, it still would not have prevented colonization, due to technology and weapons and numbers.

So, I believe we should put right as much as we can.. such as unpaid wages with interest.. etc..but the land issue ? wow..thats a hard one.
I'd rather see indigenous people assimilate, but if not..what do you propose ? Live in a traditional way ? I'd be cool with that too, but around the cities it isn't practical. I've suggest governments do compulsory taking of houses near creeks important to indigenous tribes, and allow Aboriginals to live in them to re-establish the sense of connection to the land.
Not many takers so far :)

Feel free to tell us what you think should happen ?

David Long says: "The fact that people did what they thought was right or good or beneficial, that is, in accordance with rational choice was disposed of by the assumption that these were only values and hence, subjective tastes."

Well I value my life. You can do any scientific test you like. Give me a lie detector - anything. Hold a gun to my head and do a brain scan and you'll see my amygdala, that is, my brain's alarm system stimulated. We all have an amygdala which has evolved so that if you stimulate one part you get the fear factor, another and you get appeasment and yet another you'll have outbursts of rage. Flight, fight and appeasement. Read a few scientific journals and you'll find that to be proven beyond doubt. So it is therefore right or benifical of me to live in a society of individuals and families who also value life. Now that is subjective "taste" or more correctly it is a plain fact as established by not only the lie-detector test but also a pretty well ingrained survival instinct.

I put it to you, David, that once it is established that a value is proven to be a generally undeniable and unrefutable truth on the base human level (before certain propagandists have devalued life through instilling fear of the Other) - then it becomes more than "subjective taste" and more an objective truth. We are programmed for survival, normal unaffected people don't needlessly choose death, so therefore life is valued.

On the other hand, if we follow the line of thinking DL posits, we end up with a society of individauls and families that does not value human life based on science but on cultural mores. That sees the taking of it (innocent or not) as logical and dependent on subjective taste. A bit like the terrorists.

BOAZ wrote: "European civilisation midwifed unprecedented intellectual progress"

I take you were still born then?

Multiculturalism has been abused by governments and big business to prevent people from defending their interests in stopping high immigration to Australia. When people tried to protest at the wonton overwhelming of natural water supplies, when they attempted to make the connection between the property developer lobby groups pushing for high immigration, they were chastised and humiliated by unfair calls of racist. Thus multiculturalism as an idea has become misused as an ideology. This is most unfortunate. It has also provided a convenient way of identifying voter sectors for targeting by politicians. The idea that racism is the dominant evil in Australia seems to me to be a witch-hunt. Racism and classism and all the other isms that divide do much better when populations are made to grow fast and water, soil and shelter become resources to battle for, at first in the market and later in the streets. We have a beautiful country here which we are serving up to big business like a cheap restaurant dish. I used to love the idea of multiculturalism but I fear that I am suffering by its misuse as a blunt instrument of political manipulation. I like to know people from many countries but I do prefer for culture to come from an awareness of this land and its biophysical qualities, instead of some commercially produced promotion of 'culture' as a brand to fight over. Education has also been seduced by developer run organisations like APop which is scandalous. Not long before MacDonalds puts add in exercise books, I guess. Australia has sold out its education system and the rich are collecting political parties the same way the collect football teams. We are being repackaged into artificial tribes, the better to sell more cultural and plastic trinkets to.

BOAZ wrote: "European civilisation midwifed unprecedented intellectual progress"

Here's a shock for you BOAZ, Islamic civilisation midwifed the European Golden Age. Without the Islamic Golden Age, Europe would have taken a lot longer to reach the point where it could start challenging old outmoded concepts such as the dominance of Church over State.