Ein Ketzer des sozialwissenschaftlichen Grundparadigmas der westlich-imperalistischen Moderne

Im Grunde genommen bin ich ein Ketzer in den jüngeren Sozialwissenschaften.
Meines Erachtens haben sich die Sozialwissenschaften, die Wirtschaftswissenschaften im Speziellen, im Zuge der Liberalisierung und Globalisierung der letzten Dekaden zunehmend von den geisteswissenschaftlichen Prinzipien der Falsifikation weg- und mit empirischer, speziell quantitativer Forschung auf das Dünneis der Quasi-Verifikation hinausgewagt.
Diese Wissenschaften erheben heutzutage gleichsam den Anspruch, mit ihrer empirischen Methodik Tatsachen nachweisen und beweisen zu können. Auf theoretischer Ebene kommt einer solchen Auffassung die Idee gleich, dass die sozialen und ökonomischen Entwicklungen naturgegeben seien, ein höherer Mechanismus dahinterstecke, der das Bessere obsiegen lasse – sozusagen "survival of the fittest" in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft.
In den Sozialwissenschaften drückt sich das in der Demokratie aus, die sich als „Ende der Geschichte“ versteht. In den Wirtschaftswissenschaften ist es der Liberalismus, der sich als effizienteste Wirtschaftsform behauptet hat. Gerade mit dem Sieg über den antagonistischen Kommunismus sieht er sich als Optimum bestätigt.
Doch meines Erachtens sind alle diese Entwicklungen willkürlich und systemintrinsisch. Ob das eine oder andere obsiegt, hängt ganz alleine von Machtverhältnissen in Politik, Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Medien ab. Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsform sind denn im Endeffekt eine reine Glaubensfrage.
Interessanterweise scheint dieser feste Glauben gerade mit der jüngsten Finanzkrise etwas zu bröckeln: Das Paradigma des Neoliberalismus zerbricht an seinen eigenen Ansprüchen der Universalität. Ich will hier aber einmal ganz aus Stolz klarstellen, dass ich schon vor Jahren trotz systemintrinsischen Vorlesungen und Lehrbüchern an der Universität unser Wirtschaftssystem als Konstrukt erkannt und exzessiv systemextrinsische Kritik an diesem blinden Paradigma geübt habe.
Es ist an diesem Punkt, wo ich harsche Kritik gegenüber dem Grundpfeiler der modernen Sozialwissenschaften, der empirischen Forschung, und seiner prominenten Form der komparativen Analyse heftige Kritik üben muss. Eine komparative Analyse ohne kritisch theoretischen Gegenpol scheint nämlich genau diesem quasi-naturwissenschaftlichen Grundparadigma in den Sozialwissenschaften zu erliegen, indem der Vergleich davon ausgeht, dass das was in der Realität existiert, die optimale Lösung ist. Es gibt gar keinen Grund für platonische Ideenwelten, auf Theorien auszuweichen, da diese schon längstens Umsetzung gefunden hätten.
Eine solche Denkweise ist natürlich auch vom Neoliberalismus inspiriert und verkennt in ihrer Systemintrinsität, dass ein jedes Wirtschaftssystem von politischen Gesetzen, sozialen Normen und ökonomischen Konventionen (wie Verträgen) nicht nur beeinflusst, sondern geradezu determiniert wird. Erst der Glaube an das System lässt dieses optimal funktionieren, und wenn dies nicht der Fall ist, dann herrscht Korruption, Window-Dressing oder soziale Aufruhr – je nach Systemauslegung.
Eine komparative Analyse auf rein praktischer Ebene riskiert denn in der empirischen Prämisse leer zu laufen, dass die Wirtschaftspraxis Produkt einer Evolution ist, die es nur zu beschreiben und instrumentell zu erklären ist: eine self fulfilling prophecy der forschungsleitenden Theorie sozusagen. Doch die Prämissen der empirischen Erhebung, der Beschreibung und der Interpretation sind wiederum von Gesetzen, Normen und Konventionen determiniert, kurz: Eine jede Theorie ist in ihrem Kern normativ.
Da dies nicht ausgeschaltet werden kann, muss es zumindest explizit gemacht werden. Deshalb darf eine komparative Analyse nicht auf einen theoretischen Gegenpol verzichten.

In the beginning was the word and the word was God.

What a coincidence - or is it fate? Within ten days, I've got presented and came to realize about the final piece of the puzzle that denotes my philosophy of normative concepts based on the assumption of subjective realism. I'm talking about that final piece that would mark the final frontier of my theory, the very basic theorem below which even my principle of having principle would lose sense.
Let me recapitulate: Reckoning that every theory, every philosophy and every religion, in short every belief, is ultimately based on completely deliberate premises which can refer to no more basic universal true and right fact, you come to realize that our whole world, everything we have explained and accepted, is an invention, or better put an "enacted reality". That doesn't mean that it's completely subjective, but rather inter-subjective between members of that same belief. Past that, there's no way of communication or argumentation. In fact, as those beliefs get consciously and unconsciously passed on to future generations, the community, for example the modern society, gets less and less aware of them. The result is a process of socialisation that lacks system-extrinsic views and criticism. The belief becomes a self-explanatory system, its principles (or theorems) norms (or normative concepts). Whenever such a belief becomes dominant and drives all other systems and their concepts out, the system-intrinsicism tends to become absolute and there's no other competitive belief that could shake the fundaments of the new-born paradigm. I feel like we're currently living in paradigms in many fields of our lives: The totalitarian national state in politics, neo-liberalism in economics, romanticism in relationships, etc. Now, what I try to do is to shake the grounds of those current normative concepts. My goal isn't to make people abjure their beliefs but to come to realize that those are "only" beliefs, an enacted reality and not the truth and righteousness.
This is where my new concept of a world view without any principles but the principle to have no principles comes in. Actually, such a principle is pretty to the basic theorem of (social) sciences that things cannot get confirmed but only proven wrong. However, in contrast to science, my theory doesn't allow to construct a reality but only to destroy one. Therefore, it's something like a final step past deconstructivism, one may reckon. However, there is a tendency to start building new idols - and the idol of my concept as been revealed as the human being as the final truth which means that we can only take for sure that there are other people out there. This again completely relates to humanism which is a forerunner of modern sciences.
However, the final frontier, the very last concept that would allow criticism on other concepts in the first place, missing.
Actually, that piece was right in front of my eyes all the time. Ironically - or maybe rather logically (on an unconscious level), that was nothing else but the other big topic in my constant pondering: language. All my system-extrinsic criticism can only be valid and effective if I actually presume that I've understood the terms of those beliefs in the right away. That problem became apparent when I was talking to a woman who conceived "norms" not as social, inter-subjective standards but personal, subjective guidelines. On this point, my whole argumentation head a dead end.
It was just yesterday when someone made a so simple but so accurate reference to the initial words of the bible: "In the beginning was the word and the word was God." Take it literally and it means that the way you define your concepts defines the ways of your belief.
This also goes along with my theories about the determinant character of language in our way of thinking: As she defined terms in another way, she was thinking of the denoted aspects in a completely different way. I reached the same problem like below the basic principles where beliefs cannot communicate between each other anymore as there's simply no code of conduct.
Therefore, the basic presumption in my concept is that I'm criticising with the same language the belief's communicated in.
Personally, I feel that as a very low-level, commonly accepted presumption: Language is the basic carrier of communication in the first place. There's no use to consider it as subjective instead of inter-subjective as otherwise, it's simply got no use. But of course, misunderstandings happen as the definition of its semantics and syntax requires ongoing synchronisation between all partners.
Nevertheless, it's a presumption and whereever someone says that I didn't understand his words, my argumentation fails.
It's at this point where my concept becomes constructive of its own as it tries to promote and establish an understanding of language as the most basic principle of all beliefs. Language as the final zealotry? I can imagine more ignorant doctrines.

The arrogance of many ignorant disciples of science

Yesterday, at 6 am with an empty stomach and a headache torturing me to insanity, I tried to have an argument with a pretty interesting young girl over the internet. Basically, she tried to deny the right of existence for Christianity because of illogical, contradictious aspects within the own world of Christian beliefs. She brought up the example of Christmas and the probably wrong dating and concluded since the date's wrong anyway, people shouldn't celebrate it in the first place. Still to believe that the written and colloquial sources hold true, "to have faith" in it, would be naïve and irresponsible. Actually, that argumentation of hears bore two fallacious implications: The first is that concepts shall be (completely) abandoned once they're proven wrong and second that the science are superior to non-scientific concepts.
However, there are several questions to confront the girl's radical logical reasoning: What's the problem with the wrong date? What to be thought about the fact that the character of Jesus Christ is actually getting substituted by the one of Santa Claus - who's supposed to be worshipped on December 6? If we're supposed to abandon Christianity because of that inconsistency - what about New Year? On the one hand, Western New Year is based on the Gregorian calendar which again is orientated on Christian holidays. On the other hand, astronomy gives evidence that the revolution of the earth takes longer than 365 days - and an additional day for every fourth year doesn't level out the gradually increasing temporal distortion. I've given two arguments of which the first unveils a scientific concept orientated on religious concepts and the second that even our scientific concepts are imperfect.
The point is that every concept is deducted from a limited set of observations and eventually faces contradictious evidence. There's the claim of (social) sciences that it holds higher value because of its principles of falsification, that theories can't be proven right but only wrong. This means that scientific concepts don't risk becoming dogmatic. That's also what the girl was playing at when she tried to distinguish between religious and cultural theories. However, just as that distinction is based on a categorization in Western social sciences, scientific concepts only exercise the principle of falsification within the system of scientific methods: If you want to criticize time measurement, you have to make an examination according to scientific methods and measures. Therefore, any concept, any theory - may it be religious, cultural or scientific - is based on deliberately chosen assumptions, theorems, which to question is simply no use. Thus, you cannot prove a whole school of theories wrong, but just sub-theories in it. And it that case, the different Christian schools have certainly led various conflicts, arguments which resulted in changes. And as all those schools are Bu lt on the principles of Christianity, Christian principles obviously must seem completely logical to them.
Therefore, the first two conclusions of that little argument were that first, every theory is normative at its core - even science, and that second, there's no use in discussing between different schools of theories.
However, there was a third, most crucial mistake in the girl's argumentation: She herself forgot about the normative character of science and considered as "real" and "true". Only because of that, she dared to question the Christian belief with system-extrinsic arguments. [work in progress]

All about the world.