1. FWeinert, Bradford University (UK)1 Friedel Weinert: Philosophy of the Social Sciences Year II: Semester II SS-2000M Standard Issues in the Social Sciences Relativism Lecture VIII

2. FWeinert, Bradford University (UK)2 Standard Issues in the Social Sciences *the humanism-scientism question *the cross-cultural question (relativism/universalism) *the individualism-collectivism question (holism) *the fact-value question +The Question of Relativism +How it arises +essentially through the fact that social actors share symbolic meaning +makes the social scientist a participant observer +meaning in social life varies from society to society +are these symbolic meanings translatable, transferable, comparable to other social contexts? Standard Issues: Relativism

3. FWeinert, Bradford University (UK)3 What relativism is ëAll forms of relativism relate the beliefs held by people to some non- universal framework (background) against which these beliefs are held to be valid ëJudgements of validity of these beliefs must be made against the local background beliefs or framework ëThis framework can be some historical epoch (Antiquity, Middle Ages) or some form of culture (primitive society, industrial society) Forms of Relativism ìmoral relativism: no universal standards of what is morally right or wrong; judgements of what is morally right or wrong are to be made against the local background of beliefs held by the people who decide what is right or wrong Standard Issues: Relativism

4. FWeinert, Bradford University (UK)4 ìConceptual relativism: conceptual schemes organise the world/nature/reality according to their own criteria; the correctness of these criteria cannot be judged from outside the conceptual scheme ìExample: Witchcraft in primitive societies ~ ‘ irrational’ or rational Standard Issues: Relativism Implies acceptance of Western criteria (of science) Implies acceptance of non Western criteria (of rationality)

5. FWeinert, Bradford University (UK)5 A relativist defence of ‘reality’ (P. Winch)  what counts as ‘real’ depends on context and language used  reality is not reflected in language, rather language shows what is real and what is unreal  concepts used in other cultures can only be interpreted in the context of their way of life  we cannot legislate what is real and rational in other cultures  rationality is context- or culture-dependent  rationality = conformity to (local) norms  criteria of logic only intelligible in context of ways of living and modes of social life Standard Issues: Relativism Relativist position on rationality: Primitive beliefs are rational in their own terms.

6. FWeinert, Bradford University (UK)6  Modern sense of rationality of beliefs  a) subject to rules of logic (non-contradictory, consistent, coherent, valid)  b) subject to empirical testability/confirmation  c) subject to differentiation ëPerceptual relativism: different communities ‘ live in different worlds’; depending on different concepts people see the world differently (example: Eskimos) Standard Issues: Relativism and Rationality Reminder: Modern sense of rationality in social sciences modernisation of society - differentiation into capitalist economy/modern state/rational administration cultural rationalisation - empirical science/autonomous art/systems of morality/ rational law rationalisation on level of personality: methodical lifestyle

7. FWeinert, Bradford University (UK)7 Some formal features of Relativism èbeliefs on certain topic vary èbeliefs are relative to circumstances of the users èSymmetry or Equivalence Postulate èAll beliefs are on a par with one another with respect to the causes of their credibility (irrespective of questions of truth or falsehood). èAll beliefs must be explained by specifying local causes of their credibility èContrast the attitudes of relativist and rationalist Standard Issues: Relativism, Features

8. FWeinert, Bradford University (UK)8 Rationalist /distinction between true and false, rational and irrational - irrespective of local contexts /different explanations (I.e. rejection of equivalence principle) /Rational beliefs  Validity  reasons /Irrational beliefs  Credibility  causal, socio-psychological explanation /(Habermas): social acceptability versus cognitive validity Relativist /what counts as evidence is itself based on local assumptions /Example: insistence on intersubjective testability in modern science /distinction between validity and credibility made against local background /no sharp distinction between context of discovery and context of justification Standard Issues: Relativism – Rationalist, Relativist

9. FWeinert, Bradford University (UK)9 òFour arguments against Relativism òThe Bridgehead Argument òThe Argument from Evolution òThe Argument from Translatability òThe Argument from Validity Claims òThe Bridgehead Argument ñAll cultures have a common core of true beliefs and rationally justified patterns of inference ñThere are cultural universals: material object perception beliefs; simple inferences; notions of truth & falsity; right & wrong; some scientific methods ñexistence of a common reality between different people (s) # independence of facts ñsame rational expectations, predictions ñsome basic logical rules must be identical ñ(p  p) (  p) Standard Issues: Relativism and Counterarguments

10. FWeinert, Bradford University (UK)10 òThe Argument from Evolution ñCommon ancestry and evolution as a principle which spans cultures and epochs and makes them commensurable ñall cognitive apparatuses have evolved in the same environment ñthe environment provides the underlying substance which assures commensurability òThe Argument from Translatability ñconceptual schemes are intertranslatable ñconceptual schems share a common ontology: man concepts refer to the same objects, same events ñ‘facts’ make sentences and theories true ñdifferences in conceptual schems are subject to ‘communicative rationality’ Standard Issues: Relativism and Counterarguments

11. FWeinert, Bradford University (UK)11 Standard Issues: Relativism and Counterarguments +The Argument from Validity Claims (Habermas) +Rejection of inherent relativism of all postmodernist thinking  unity of reason in the diversity of its voices  distinction between rational validity and social acceptability  Example: Geocentrism; Great Chain of Being; discoveries contrary to expectation  improvement of conceptual frameworks and empirical confirmation  function of concepts like truth, justification, rationality  distinction between concepts and facts  conceptual schemes guide but do not determine our ways of seeing the world

12. FWeinert, Bradford University (UK)12  Situational reason  context-dependent (language)  context-independent (validity)  cognitive adequacy of knowledge claims  function of true statements possible within conceptual scheme  Example: Copernican Revolution, Darwinian Revolution  cognitive adequacy mirrored in the practical way of life  (un-)readiness to deal with discrepancies and contradictions encountered on practical level  dialectic of openness and closure Standard Issues: Relativism and Counterarguments