Science Forums 2

[HydrogenBond]

Social science deal with how culture evolves, where it came from and where it is going. It also addresses tweaks to get to the future in the best way. If we do an historical investigation, religion has played a role in cultural evolution. Ignoring this data could make atheistic social science unscientific, since it could employ changes without using 20/20 hindsight. It could repeat the mistakes of the past. This is why it is required to touches bases with history or religion.

The analogy is music. Music has evolved over the centuries. If we don't learn from history we may come up with an old style, give it a new name, and call it the new state of the art. One litmus test of the value of social science theory and practice is the extent of the social mop that is needed to clean up behind the social scientists. Any mop shows lack of efficiency. Even if it looks fancy if is creates a lot of added social cost it is 3-stooges science.

Let me give a simple example. Gluttony was a sin within some mainstream religions. The atheist social scientists got rid of the sin connection. Now there is an obesity problem. It has to do with following impulse and no vehicle to help with will power. The social mop requires expensive medical procedures, specialty foods, diets, health clubs, and technologies. People pigged out in the past, too, so this is not new. The minimum mop used an internal will power technique which nipped the impulse in the bud. The atheist look for a genetic link or medicines to mop up. Nobody is at fault, since will power is not important to atheist social policy.