Ethics
Precautions
Moral and ethics may have, historically received, all necessary phylosophical introductions; but poorly curious or carefull applications. Globalization of communication(s), if still not having well pedagogically diffused in, what is called principles of international basic rights and what jurists call jus cogens, nevertheless some are trying to do something at the respect. Mis-pedagogically because out of litterate translations of universal declarations of human rights, few have been made to adapt to local art, games, process, adaptations for appropriation by cultures. More messages just tend to simplify vocabulary with dull technics. It is not so easy - even with local intermediaries trained in First World temples of reason - to care properly and flexibly with their own indigeneous fellow citizens, or ... should we say because ... ?
Olicognography's purpose suggest that operational definitions of the sort correspond to context, situations and cultures. To them to define and detail their values (they are not so different), to adopt and translate, to apply and assume them; while also be proposed and provided the tools for their own comparisons. They are more able to produce robust and accepted rules. That does not mean that moral and ethics could not be fundamental nor essential to anyone. Either not to say that what they do could not locally suffer any sort of questionning. But there have been so much hypocrisy in globalized malpractices since when Rubicon was crossed, up to Guantanamo's shame; that direct global approach should always be suspected; as well as the opposite: local specification should prevent common values to harm others. The problem in basic human rights techniques is that there is still a lot of practical common sense to dress. Ethics and moral are more relevant to situations, questions, criteria; than should follow the sort of consistency, local processes, honnest managment in context.
So, in olicognography there are both simplified supports, concern for ethics, moral and criteria of justice, meanwhile it insists that we only can be short and suggest you to be critical and cautious with what we say. You have to mind what you do, not because others but according your honnest, sincere and positive conciousness. If we suggest ways to managed them, we stay poor on definitions. Pratically our care in such sort of things is to:
- Respect local definitions, democracies, true situations and all things already mentionned,
- Mind complexity of all that, care fallacies, bias and other sort of mistakes,
- Not force you to be too abstract and too unease with these concepts,
- Suggest that flexibility of olicognographic frameworks seem able to open mind on art of management of moral and ethical criteria.
- Not say that criteria or values could be elastic: arguments of such sort pretend to the contrary,
- Provide frameworks helping to conceive systems of translation; to show that they can have differences in patterns but equivalent moral and ethics, before disqualifying any systems.
Profanes' Moral
If we criticize "thinkers" since they should care more to apply what they pretend, especially on moral and ethics; neither it is to say that being less "sophistic-able" can pretend to innocence. Any have or are the causes, effects of all these things moving together. Many human actors pretending to act with ethic and moral criteria, lack of will for setting hypothesis; miss to question what they see, have or could serving other than themsselves.
So much goodwill of pretended to be simple "low" society is wasted. Opportunities without cost are crushed, for the reason that because not in its selfish matter of interest or; good individuals of influence in a group of leadership prevented to do anything out the sense of "real politics ideology". Like if, being strong in caring is just weakness. Hegemonic societies have always found extraordinary "ethical" explanations to abuse of fellow humans. Absurd extraordinary miserable moral systematisations have never failed. Too many have ignored, even when knowing good costless and potential good social benefit alternatives: "mad meridiens of sad latitudes".
There are the wrongoinds of the profane, refusing to open their mind, ignoring any concern, avoiding any goodwill and intent, characteristic also of most populist or dictatorial leaders. They uncare or miscare explanations, arguments and others framesworks, imposing as far as their grabbed strength of power to consider anything but their truth and the remain: dump. Many are the ones, well educated just rudelly executing, because the aims of execution of being rational in their mind, means to avoid question, pretend to be sure and decide against open minded criteria. Many others less competent, less intelligent and less blessed lack of curiosity, avoid questions, lazzyly ignore even when it costs nothing; concentrated only to the narrow view of their inmediat benefit. In relative terms some moral-ethical tautological truisms could be:
- No one should feel guilty not to have made those criteria prevail but, yes, not to have intented to understand and do something ("do what you can and not pretend that you have done all what you could"),
- Those whom have made mistakes, should not avoid to question themselves and try to do better and find ways to prevent future shame ("done what you did: prevent redoing things the same or like those you did not do"),
- Those whom object should ask themselves before, if they could have done
it as they think ("do not pretend others to have avoided what they should
have done if, yourself, may would have done the same way, in same sort of
constraints").
Adaptating to group to which you belong, it could be to:
- Share with the group your feelings to be guilty but do not let the group makes you feel guilty to have shared it,
- Your ethical success is not only for your own, it should be the one of all your group,
- Never think a system of moral and ethical issues be finished, so as it can stay with no questions, too proud of itself and its values.
But to explain it in a different way. We are all profane of something. Most specialist too compromized in the eluse defense of their art, find the reasons for the failure of their system on things of which they are profane not on the limits of their own arts.
Scientific Method Ethics
Philosophy detached progressively sciences if often started. And sciences developed further then intenting to turn pure. Some with formal supports. Others applied exact science. Exact in a way of being based on devices, independent from humans direct manipulations of interest. Be some others, more related to measuring devices. Be others well ruled by reproducible experimental processes, where humans could not biase results. Others are more directly related to humans interest and/or base on human phenomena.
Historically formal sciences had first to get out of esoteric issues. Serving the discover of primary physical principles. Enough universal for giving a primary umbrella, under which main characteristics could be effectivelly registered with robust, large experimental devices. So they could feed humans anthropic engineering and; on the other side, develop safely inductive axiomatic sciences as formal expression of scientifc system(s); that could apply transversally to any formalized sciences, in a more of less deductive way.
Mathematics started with fingers, accounts and forms. Geometric pure forms was inspiring self development. Geometric stood for long, primary source of "evidencing" properties of pure forms. Core and corpus of symbols, language, analytic object developped since abstraction divertion very slowly and found their analyticity, substituing geometric forms toward analytic writings. Geometric visual forms also diversify their ressources. Logics, so dependent and not just for bad & wrong reasons found quite late (respect to mathematics), scripture, symbols, indeed with the help of mathematics and geometry. Too anchrored to social issues, especially in occidental shaping of sciences, some disqualification of other philosophy was required. Enough contradiction between dogmatic serving explorations. The sort of cases, exercises, experiences and intellectual games more prone to work ambiguities, playgames, sort of difficulties. They thought needed to be solved, rather than just well exposed for the benefit of influencial theoreticians. To protagonistic ways, providing the landmarks of proper pathways to solutions. Observe that pathway in systems of variably discrete networks are essentials to adaptations and transformations. Now, few suggestions on ethical management of methods: most of olicognographs are for setting framework that could incorporate such criteria:
- Formal methods have developped a lot, enough to detail conditions of applications and limits, that should be better taken into account, for not pretending fallaciously any identification and specification to be scientific, whatever looking like scientific dresses put by rhetoteric, dialectic and dogmatism,
- Unicity of scientific epistemologic and heuristic methods more easilly taught when with example and details of applications may be loosing byside of overview on principles, while unicity taught too late in the practice of sciences (for exemple only at end of curriculum, when preparing thesis: "learn my service before yours"),
- Complexity so soon and essential in real world phenomena, makes election, seleccion and applications of scientific methods (heuristics and epistemology) an art. Too often poorly taught and not applied with all the aids, pedagogy and supports that could favor essence (like making common people willing to understand enough of what make their communities means rights and duties),
- Revolution of information tools could have developed so much toward the support of traditional ways of malpracticed arts, instead having enhanced sciences and methods care, cautions and precautions, for applying them well where, when and how they could help, not confuse or abuse,
- Diversification of tools and methods is extraordinary, but not necesarrilly have nurtured consistency. Still these are depending a lot on arbitrary preference of experts, not necesarilly open mind or practicing well democracy or pedagogy more narrowing a lot their art and aims,
- So, on one side the pathway to proper use of methods has extraordinarilly widened and increased; making reasonnable management of methods a much more scientifically difficult art. While good arts have turned far more difficult for correct honnest management of methods. "Inevitably" wrongdoings have been empowered and make now very hard to know if developments of results of investigation are really meaningful. Meanwhile they have distanced far beyond reasonnable rights of legitimate actors. Actors have been turned, sometimes purposedly, even turned more incompetent in the management of their own social problems. Catastrophic leak of artificial and natural complexity hyperinflations, have been constrained to care, solve and use economic management that have reduced, shortened and determined to strong increase of inefficiency.
Social Artists of Sciences
Social "scientists", when caring approaches, often design doctrinally their register to be homogeneous as a "Science ... essentially inevitable". Practically doctrines' constructions mean that for building their own science, they try to explain all their related register but only since it, with an homogeneous view. They shape corpus of theories, cases systems of interpretation, phenomena's interpretations, explanations and logical units. Mainly for setting their coherence, not necesarilly the one of human affairs,even when about one or the other register. So at some points, an large amount need of careful specifications. Many of their arguments consist to refer, not to the phenomena and phenomenological evidence they have, but to quite distant references, that have pretended to had the best explanations, to justify the fact that truth is on their side and not by side of local actors.
This could be not bad in "simple" objective things, but is very wrong in complex ones. This has costs: the non practicability of their own science, if not the lack of understanding of any progressive reasoning; where they could have been useful. Calling progressive reasoning the willingness to think it and rethink it and care specifications and apply and do something in any situation, for not having to remember it with shame in the future.
Dialectically, rhetoretically, dogmatically, we have few doubts that some, in any register, can succeed in their project of logical coherence. Nowadays it is formally easy: just copy and paste a logical system of a book of logic; collect your concepts and correspond them to the formal logical variables. If facts do not confirm, they can adapt their definitions, sometimes for good or, for most: "unbreakable" tautologies and formal truisms. And provide new arguments and new explanations, to extend their scope and range of coherent answers to many phenomena. They will make easy over-generalizations or over-universalization of the catchment of their proprietary concepts; and treat, dispicably, "residues" as meaningless for ignoring alternatives to their art, like the sort that involve moral and ethic.
Proliferation of expertise will mean so that over, so many predictions, at least some will look like having blessed their authors. And, for another cycle, those will reshape and push forward their "new paradigm of the sort". Indeed, because scientific methods have been matured during centuries, they will include enough of formal procedures and ressources to look like mastering properly. But, with the defects that eleccion of methods and short cuts of applications of formal techniques are exposed to arbitrary simplifications, abuse(s) and mistakes. So: many mistakes because the extend of complexities and so wasteful intents to fit closer and closer, to "the Science" (not to practical design) while adverse arguments run out of control but turn more important. Part of the problem being that explanations and interpretations proper management, have implications not as encapsulated as commentaries dispensed by experts and mode of treatment much less specific than to expect.
A reason of all these efficient and sophisticated methodological fallacies, of so many "social artists in the needed World", comes first from that they want to demonstrate their thesis to graduate more to contribute to the empowerment of their school of thoughts, than to have respected what they could have done where they were as a ressource. Second, they are also enough conceptually efficient to adapt enunciates to their thesis. They can pack their "information" for looking like good scientists, while very locally wrong. Social utility is a very different thing. More important is to sell their services, obtain their budget and pretend to be superior. But since they cannot do everything well, they often fail in their social utility, almost always, for reasons for which they are also very skilled in to disengage their responsibilities. Not to have critical thinking on their "science". Except for suggesting more studies. Consciously or not, faithfully or not, cynically or not, if they let something to legitimate actors, it turn soon simply inappropriable and may not even fill any good humanistic criteria.
Minimum Conclusion
Not to feel guilty that one dominant trait in the previous, could look like pointing you as a sociopathic abuser and make you feel offended. Think positive: how in a situation you can adapt, make another mix, care to find someway to respect and make prevail ethical and moral criteria. At best in the sort of system that exist and is admitted locally.
Indeed you can think that olicognography can be seen prone too to all these wrongdoings and mistakes.
