Re: Social Science and the Problem of Is/Ought

Dear WSN,

G. Kohler suggested I illustrate my argument with a specific example to explain my understanding of the various levels of  “is.”  I’ve decided to use a few different kinds of examples.  Based on the fact that it was by seeing many such illustrations that I came up with my argument in the first place, I’ve included the following items.  I’d like to find out whether any of you end up coming to the same conclusions I have or to others. 

Pardon the fact the examples themselves aren’t entirely fitted to the argument except by virtue of the enumerated points following them.  I want to see whether, in light of these examples here, you come to similar or different sets of conclusions than I had when I first formulated my model a few weeks ago.  I also would very much like to know whether you think these examples are either well-fitted or poorly fitted to the main ideas of my hypothesis.

So …To begin:

 ((“Seventy percent of the Afghan people are malnourished.”/  “One out of four children in Afghanistan won’t live past age five because healthcare is not available for them.”))

– [Laura Bush, Weekend Radio Address, 11-17-01]

“Facts” = Positive (empirical) epistemological “is”

These statistical facts indicate the sort of an “is” meant to elicit a set of feelings in its listeners … in order to bring about an “ought” … and hence a new sort of “is” through a re-construction of the social order in Afghanistan (i.e., through social construction & re-working the mechanics of the social system there)

Status-quo // the “is” of pragmatic social affairs

There is a systematic structure/set of processes behind the two facts listed here; its quality of being “is” can be differentiated between two elements:  “is” in the sense of a scientific, positive, empirical setting of human behavior (in a socioeconomic, anthropological, or social psychological/psycho-historical context) & “is” in the socio-politicized/economic sense of “modern” social affairs (which includes not only the “issues” but also those surface-oriented structures [‘constructs’] and processes [‘activities’] wrapped up with those “issues”)

With respect to particular kinds of social science endeavors -- facts tendered toward orientation of research/presentation that’s involved – oriented toward purposes of those making use of such content (Hence, that which is behind LB’s citation of those facts when she gave the Weekend Radio Address)(…)

What are the “behavioral” (the word to be taken in its most universal sense here) roots, manifestations, and effects behind these two facts & the two practical issues at the heart of them (i.e., Poverty/Famine and Problem of Healthcare around the World)?  [Question should be considered in socioeconomic, anthropological, and psycho-historical/social psychological senses]

**********

In connection with my next set of points, please consider this following bit of information:

“Dow surges past 10,000 level” (Yahoo.com, 12/5)

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t&s=^DJI..

1.      As a index, the Dow gives a good indication of both where the Stock Market (& US economy as a whole) is headed …

2.      Insofar as it deals with the actual processes and units of economic change [in a largely organic sense] of the Market and the US economic/financial system, the Dow is ‘real’ and can function on its own apart from their coverage in the media and the socio-legal context in which its framework as organizational entity is defined.  Its reality, as such, is determined through the reality of those units and socioeconomic processes to which it is connected.

3.      But, insofar as it operates through coverage by media sources and by way of its being defined as the “Dow” in a social-economic-corporate-legal context (and this goes for the NASDAQ as well & for GE, Microsoft, and other organizational entities) its reality is virtual, synthetic, and constructed.  Without the name, without media coverage, and without its being defined (essentially & operatively & structurally) in a socio-legal setting, it cannot exist as the “Dow”, or “Microsoft,” and so on. 

Furthermore, it cannot exist as any sort of concrete actuality without the organic developments that occur within it; it cannot exist apart from the social dynamism of human behavior that occurs inside of it (i.e., in terms of #2).

4.      (#2 à basis of the underlying substrate, #3 à basis of sociological overlay)

“Citrus County Clerk of Courts” (Yahoo Search, 12/5)

http://www.clerk.citrus.fl.us/

1.      (Consider the same types of points in reference to this example also) … Apart from any organic/behavioral developments that occur within its systematic framework, this ‘organizational’ structure or set of relationships cannot exist as either an actual or viable social reality.

2.      Organizational Chart and the Court System it represents à More or less it’s a “paper” reality [i.e., a virtual reality].  Without the name, without the media, and without its being defined in a socio-legal setting, it cannot exist as the “Circuit Court System, Citrus County, Florida” (with all that such entails in a legally-defined structural & operative sense)(defined by such documents as the organizational chart, the mission statement, the “functions and duties” listing, etc.)

**********

Finally, consider some very different kinds of information.  This information has more of a historical bent to it.  Yet it is grounded in an equally ‘factual’ basis.  And, it too, can help us to better understand (first) the social reality of a human community (Catal Huyuk & the surrounding lands of Anatolia and the Near East in the Neolithic), and (second) the socioeconomic and historical reality surrounding the trade of an important commodity, paper, in Late Antiquity and Medieval times.

1.  “Catal Huyuk:  The Temple City of Prehistoric Anatolia” (William Carl Eichman)

            http://www.telesterion.com/catal1.htm

2. “History of Paper (Silk Road Foundation, Chronology, History of Paper)

                http://www.silk-road.com/toc/index.html

**********

So, in conclusion, after considering these particular illustrations and the argument I laid out in my previous piece, I hope I have given you enough of a basis for understanding my overall conception of social reality and the way I think a social scientist should approach it.  Not that I want to define really how others do their work; mostly my purpose here is to lay out a framework that shows some of the different ways by which such a task is accomplished and mostly to lay out the kinds of social-economic facts that I believe are better understood by referencing the sociological overlay and the underlying substrate.

When it comes down to it, my view of the matter can be summarized like this:  The essence of social reality is in [the] organic processes [of social dynamism] and not in the mechanics of social construction(s). 

You may choose to agree or disagree with my assessment.  Take it or leave it at that; it’s my view as I’ve been developing it over the past few months.  I’d certainly understand if – based on the developing nature of the concepts involved and the current lack of hard content – any of you decided not to buy my argument from the previous piece (even as it is in its beginning stages of development).

But mostly I’m looking for someone to – based on the examples I’ve referenced in this piece - suggest some alternative explanations to my argument and the ideas I’ve come up with there.  So, if you could give me some further input on this matter (now in the light of the specific cases I’ve brought to your attention here), I would appreciate it a great deal.  Thanks again for all your insights.  Best!

Luke Rondinaro

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online at Yahoo! Greetings.