leaking pen wrote:
what eds saying is, you and the pope can interpret it how you want. that doesnt change the fact that you are interpreting it WRONG, and any attempt to argue a point based on a flawed interpretation is itself flawed.
Actually, I would soften that a wee bit and say I agree with Grimer that we are actually talking about two different things: the professional definition of "cultural relativism," and the pop-culture idea of "moral relativism." I went too far when I wrote: "You understand it wrong. . . . You are simply misusing, or misappropriating, a technical term." It is okay to borrow a technical term and use it to mean something other than what the academics who coined it originally had in mine. People often do that. Words like "input" "bandwidth" and "interface" have been borrowed from computer technology, and they now mean all kinds of things.
However, I do object to one thing, which -- in my opinion -- Thomas Malloy is guilty of. He borrowed the term "cultural relativism," then he claimed it is a left-wing idea (an odd conceit), then he redefined it (to mean moral relativism), THEN, finally, he accused the originators (anthropologists and social scientists) of using the word to mean what *he* has in mind instead of what *they* have in mind. That irks me! It is okay to accuse people of moral relativism, if that is what you think they practice, but you should not build your case with a chain of mistakes and confusing misinterpretations.
I object to the faulty logic, not to the idea itself. Both cultural and moral relativism are serious ideas. They worth learning about and discussing. (But not here, which is why I marked this "OFF TOPIC.") If Malloy or the Pope find either of these ideas immoral or upsetting, I have no problem with them expressing that view. I just do not like to see their arguments based on false premises and fallacies.
Also, the notion that academics are left-wing or liberal is topsy-turvy. The causality is reversed. Academics invented liberalism! To attack them for endorsing a "liberal" agenda is like attacking the Jews because they believe in the Ten Commandments.
Liberal, modern, democratic government was codified Jefferson and others in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Jefferson was a student of enlightenment philosophy, which is and remains the bedrock basis of European academic philosophy, ethics and -- most of all -- science. You cannot do science unless you treat all participants as equals. Intellectual freedom must be guaranteed: no idea or thesis is off-limits, and there can be no threats or ostracism. There can be no privileged point of view, and no final human authority who does not need to defend his thesis. The earliest scientific conferences, societies, debates and journals were -- quite literally -- a model for democracy. In short, academics invented liberalism because they cannot do their jobs without it. It is built into the structure of the scientific method. You can trace all of the humanistic ideas that form modern government right back to documents by Bacon, Newton, Locke and Hume. (And at Monticello you will find statues of those guys prominently displayed.) Bacon, for example, repudiates and dismisses racism. He flat out declares that the only difference between Africans and Englishmen is their state of learning and their culture; intrinsic racial difference do not exist. That was a remarkable thing to assert in 1602. It is no surprise that scientists and professors still by and large subscribe to ideas and traditions taught in 1600, 1800 and 1950.
Of course there are many conservative and even reactionary scientists, but democracy and science have common roots; they are inseparable, and even the most conservative scientist must subscribe to free enquiry and equality if he is going to accomplish anything. There have been illiberal offshoots of science that violate these rules, such as what Churchill aptly called the "perverted science" of the Third Reich, but that version did not work (fortunately!) Once the Nazis took over, science ground to a halt, although technology continued to bloom for a while. The Soviet version of biology also flopped -- inevitably.
Bear in mind, I am not talking about the issue-of-the-day politics. Conventional politics are trivial compared to the larger mindset. Gene Mallove was a conservative Republican and quite religious in the conventional sense. People like Tinsley, Arthur Clarke and I were flaming liberal socialists in comparison. But in all important matters we saw eye-to-eye with Gene. By the standards of the pre-scientific age, or present day Saudi Arabia, Gene was extremely liberal. I have never met a scientist who wasn't. Robert Park is the most unreasonable, bullying, anti-intellectual, illiberal scientist I know of, yet he and I share a great deal of common ground, and I agree with much that he writes in "What's New."
Whether U.S. style democracy is the most enduring form of government or not remains to be seen. Perhaps in the long run it will be supplanted by sharia, or government by the Rich, or Chinese-style kleptocracy. But there is no question who invented it: the same gang that brought you Newton's laws of motion, thermodynamics, evolution, anthropology, antibiotics and thermonuclear weapons. And the Islamic fascists who oppose democracy also oppose science. They are not fools. They agree with the Pope: "[L]et him be anathema . . . [w]ho shall say that human sciences ought to be pursued in such a spirit of freedom as one may be allowed to hold as true their assertions, even when opposed to revealed doctrine." The forces of liberalism, democracy and science have been at war with reactionary superstition, religion, "creationism" and other irrational dogma for 400 years. The outcome is still in doubt, but there is no question in my mind where the battle lines are drawn and what is at stake.
- Jed
