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.