Simplified Word Definitions

SOCIAL:
Latin: socius, companion
(1) of or having to do with human beings in their living together (2) living with others in a community (3)gregarious (4)of or having to do with society/societies (5) pertaining to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relationship (6) of or doing welfare work (7) an informal gathering

SCIENCE:
Latin: scire, to know
(1) a branch of knowledge or study, dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws (2) systematic knowledge of the physical or material world derived through observation (3) knowledge, as of facts, theories, and principles: knowledge gained through systematic study (4) a particular branch of knowledge (5) skill, proficiency (6) a technique

When purely looking at definitions, a social science can be conceived to be a jumbo shrimp, an oxymoron. Viewed in a black and white fashion, these definitions might not work well together. This is not to discredit or knock social science in any way, but instead of pawning it off as “science,” these disciplines must be seen for what they are: art forms analyzing and hypothesizing tangible and intangible aspects of life and society; while at the same time utilizing quantitative and qualitative “empirical” methods/theories. Social sciences are all intertwined because in one way, shape, or form, they deal with aspects of, and life. The goal, or end result of social sciences is not truth or fixed “knowns,” but the overall understanding, wellbeing and prosperity of individual entities. In the Latin sense, it is possible to “know” a “companion,” while realizing/being aware of who this companion is, and was at particular intervals of time; that this companion changes, evolves, and has constants. Social science exists, and so does science fiction; and clear lines should be articulated/defined between the concepts of science, art, and opinion. Humans, human behavior, society, and life are to a large extent still wondrous mysteries with many anomalies. Life is not easily calculable and cannot be boiled down to precise mathematical/scientific equations with correct and incorrect answers.

All social scientists are individuals with unique backgrounds continually learning; and ideally have Ph.d’s in humility. The most impartial, rational, successful, and seemingly logical social scientist has bias and limitations just as all humans do. This is not a bad thing because if these biases and limitations are acknowledged, they offer up an equal, if not more valuable and critical perspective. In trying to understand someone or something, one must gain a better understanding of themselves through that someone or something. To say something is “unbiased” or “uncharged” is ludicrous because our very language and understanding is biased and charged. Clearing ones mind, clearing preconceived notions is admirable, but can never be achieved in totality, and this is alright.

The world of social science most resembles our actual physical/organic world; and there are infinite shades of gray. Right and wrong; good and bad; wisdom and stupidity can only be viewed at a particular time, or within a specific context. Claiming to know the past, or know the complexity of the human mind and the answers to life/creation is just as absurd as claiming to know the future. Any social scientist who tells you they “unequivocally know something” doesn’t know much of anything. “Not knowing” facilitates understanding, sparks thought, and leads to innovations and calculable assumptions/predictions. Social scientists must know the difference between “thinking,” “believing,” “understanding,” “predicting,” “assuming,” and “knowing.”

With every solution arises a series of infinite questions, new steps, new obstacles, and new decisions. Some answers don’t necessarily bring one closer to any universal/ultimate truths. Some answers don’t really solve anything, and are just intellectual/mental activities and games. Calculating and studying is different than trying to predict for, and think of everything. Devil’s advocacy quickly becomes a “Hamlet-tonian” inability to act. More often than not, when one finally does decide to act, the opportunity is long gone. A happy medium between thought and action must exist.

The best social scientists are childlike in many ways. There is no such thing as failure, failure is success; there is no difference between the two. When a child learns and experiences; the child is narrowing down the “known.” For a child, knowledge presented through language and lecture isn’t retained and understood as good as knowledge that manifests through experience.

When did you “really” learn how dangerous fire was? How long did it take you to know that truth? Unlike smoking and abusing cigarettes, whose adverse physical affects are not immediately apparent, but long lasting; fire’s negative affects when abused are immediately apparent with more temporary consequences. This is because the individual who learned to not play with fire through experience can draw logical conclusions and sees the absurdity of some actions pertaining to the usage of fire. They no longer need to explore all the different ways they can get burnt, there curiosities have been satisfied because now they “know.”

The smoker on the other hand understands the absurdity of their actions, inhaling smoke into their lungs, but because it is pleasurable, in most cases they cannot “see” or “know” until it is two late what they have done. The absolute absurdity of their actions is not part of their consciousness yet, because they truly have not experienced what smoking can and might do to them.

The best social scientists have knowledge through experience; but do not limit their knowledge basis to their own experiences. The best social scientists must have immediate recollections; keen observation; curiosity; the ability to differentiate between entities that are seemingly similar; wipe their slate clean not clouding primal judgments/conclusions and creating biases; energy; and unlimited retention. They must be able to draw clear parallels, understand patterns, and go with their rational, logical minds, as well as be in touch with their guts.

The most important similarity between a social scientist and a child is they must have fun and enjoy what they are doing, while making decisions and acting definitively. Social scientists must engage in immersion/participation, as well as pure non-invasive observation; but all along through a defined context. With precision and definitiveness, they must set, outline, and achieve goals, moving forward within this context/frame, adapting to, appropriating, and building to these uniquely set goals. The goals remain fixed, but the path remains sketched out in pencil. The best thinkers, athletes, leaders, educators, business professionals, lawyers, doctors—the best of the best—are capable of “thinking on their feet,” “rolling with the punches,” and always moving forward.