Sociology is Finally a Science
|Send him mail.|
“Food for Thought” is an original column appearing every other Tuesday at Everything-Voluntary.com, by Norman Imberman. Norman is a retired podiatrist who loves playing piano, writing music, lawn bowling, bridge, reading, classical music, going to movies, plays, concerts and traveling. He is not a member of any social network, nor does he plan on becoming one. Dr. Imberman has written a fantastic Christmas song which he had professionally recorded as a demonstration record. He is looking for a publisher, or A & R man, or record producer to listen to his song. It deserves to be a permanent member of the portfolio of familiar and favorite Christmas songs. Archived columns can be found here. FFT-only RSS feed available here.
If we were living between 287 B.C. and 212 B.C. and up to that period in history no one had been able to explain why some items sink and other items float in water and they all believed that nobody will ever figure out why, and I told you that I know a scientist named Archimedes who knows the explanation, would you say to me “it’s impossible, he couldn’t have solved the problem?” Would you be willing to listen to the man who discovered it and listen to his explanation? It probably would depend upon your intellectual curiosity.
If you were living between 1564 and 1642 and up to that point in history it was believed by all people, especially the noted scientists of the day, that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects and I told you that I know a scientist named Galileo who can prove that they fall at the same rate in a vacuum, would you be willing to listen to him? Or would you say, “that is impossible, everybody knows that they fall at different rates, depending upon their weights. Even Aristotle said so?” I guess it would depend upon your intellectual curiosity.
If you were living between 1564 and 1642 and up to that point in history it was believed by all people, especially the noted scientists of the day, that the moon is a perfect sphere (completely smooth) and I told you that I know a scientist named Galileo who can prove that there are mountains on the moon because he observed those very mountains by looking through a new device called a telescope and saw it with his own eyes, would you look through his tube or would you think to yourself, “I don’t have to look through his tube because it is a well-known fact that the moon is a perfect sphere.” I guess it would depend upon your intellectual curiosity.
If you were living on December 18, 1903, a time when it was fully established by the noted scientists of the day that it was impossible for man to fly and I told you that I know two bicycle mechanics named Wilbur and Orville Wright, who flew just yesterday, would you say it was impossible along with the other scientists of the day? What would it take for you to believe it? I guess it would depend upon your intellectual curiosity.
Question: What is your standard of impossibility?
Most people’s standard of impossibility is “if I can’t figure it out, it can’t be done, so I guess I’ll have to favor the consensus or the status quo,” especially if it involves social problems. Therefore, as in the examples above, if I told you that many scientists have discovered WHY we find ourselves in the present social mess and HOW to build a society of peace and prosperity based upon the same scientific principles used by Archimedes, Galileo, and the Wright Brothers, would you say, “that’s impossible”? In the meantime, the philosophy of Coercionism accepted by most people is devastating our country. Let’s see, why would anyone believe that science cannot be applied to the social realm and therefore we must continue doing the same thing that we have been doing for the past 6 thousand years of recorded history?
One usually comes up with the argument that “in the social realm we are dealing with people’s emotions and irrationality and you can’t apply science to that aspect of human life”. Wasn’t that, a priori, the same kind of popular argument during the time of Archimedes, Galileo, and the Wright Brothers used to refute their claims? Wasn’t it the emotions and irrationality of other people that stood in the way of believing the truth offered by those geniuses during their time? Yet today, in spite of the useless, mystical, emotional and irrational negative arguments of the past, it is presently understood and accepted why things float, that there are mountains on the moon and how man can fly? It is believed and understood today in spite of the emotions and irrationality of others. In addition, one should stop looking at the irrational emotions of others and focus upon their own minds. Let the irrational others go their own way and suffer the consequences. It is true that most people tend to be emotional in their judgments, but that does not make their judgments correct, nor is it an argument favoring the fact that the new idea can’t work. In fact, those who claim that something won’t work based upon the emotions and irrationality of others expose themselves as being as emotional and irrational as the very people they are accusing of being emotional and irrational.
Voluntaryism is the science of applying voluntary actions towards solving mankind’s various problems. It’s the only way we can extricate ourselves from the quagmire and failure of political action.
Well, today, when it is believed by almost everyone, that science cannot be applied to solving mankind’s most urgent problems and I told you that there existed an astrophysicist named Andrew J. Galambos (now deceased), and a scientist named Jay Stuart Snelson (now deceased) and many other expounders of Voluntaryism who have successfully applied the scientific method into developing The Science of Voluntaryism, would you say, along with almost everyone else, “everybody knows it is impossible, it can’t be done?” Would you at least be willing to listen to them or would you take the same position taken by the skeptics of the past centuries? I guess it would depend upon your intellectual curiosity. In this case, it would also depend upon another factor. Have you come to the conclusion yet, that it is evident that political solutions, from both sides of the political spectrum, have been given over a two and a quarter-century chance in America, and are failing miserably? Have you observed the waste, corruption and retrograde domino effects of political action—Republican or Democrat? Have you wondered why the problems of poverty, homelessness, economic instability, declining standards of education, increasing crime, healthcare, threats of war, dirty environments, energy shortages, high prices, ad infinitum, still exist?
If I have stimulated your interest, please go to http://www.suscivinst.com, click on the word, “store” at the top of the page, on the next page, scroll down almost to the bottom and click on “click here for the first three sessions on YouTube at no charge.” Once you are in YouTube you will see a square that reads “V-50, Session 1.” Click on it and the first lecture will begin. When it’s finished do the same with sessions 2 and then 3. Once you hear all three sessions I can’t imagine how you will not be motivated into purchasing the entire course as I did.
Listen to the first three free sessions and decide for yourself if you wish to purchase the entire course. It is offered on a “satisfaction or your money back” guarantee. If you decide to purchase the course please be aware that the CDs are playable only on an MP3 player, such as that found on your computer or a separate MP3 player. Some automobile CD players play MP3s and some do not. You can also subscribe to taking the full course online without having to bother with the physical CD disks. If my mind is a value to you, I want you to know that I have sat through the course 5 times over the past many years and find that I learn more from it each time I hear it. It will take you along an intellectual journey beyond your expectations.
The following sites are also available that will supply you with additional information about the Science of Voluntaryism.
Read more from “Food for Thought”: