Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity
(Well, that and I just get nauseated of debating something with people who basically are telling me "how it is" and refuse to see it any other way than theirs regarding just about any matter.)
Oh tell me about it mate
Some days I'm already hanging on by such a fine thread and I've found time and again the hard way, not to go where they want to lead me. I wind up paying for it for the next 24hrs trying to find my sense of peace again, all for a mere moment's wonton gratification for some totally undeveloped, and very frustrated child.
But they do pop up anywhere. At least one certain unmentionable at these forums, another two or three at history forums, even one of the lecturers at a university. Certain past and current employers and managers. One must learn how to politely ignore them. They will where given the chance, happily subvert your career just for kicks.
Back on topic, nothing particular to add really, I'll just chat a little.
Social sciences I think may be primarily governed by the anthropologists ethic "correlation does not infer causation" though to be sure it sounds much nicer in the traditional latin condiment, "all things being equal." Many social sciences and especially political agendas derived of them are very open to interpretation for these reasons. Personally I'd consider most socio-scientific assertions well educated opinions rather than hard facts.
Insofar as the neo-Eugenics movement I actually came across this by accident. Happening upon one of the aforementioned arrogant opinionators at a forum, I was researching some ridiculous contentions to answer them with self evident scientific observation rather than pointless interpersonal arguing, using an anthropologists database and found a conversation as part of a peer review of neo-Eugenics contentions between biologists, archaeologists and anthropologists, in which they falsified animal husbandry as relative to individual behaviour and found the original falsification of Eugenics to boot. It was interesting reading, but quite some time ago and I'm not sure I could find the web-database very easily now. I'd suggest beginning a search at the American Anthropological Society website and linked university databases. Also google "eugenics" and "neo-eugenics" or enter these in the search function of websites by universities which specialise in anthropology (for example, the university of Wyoming specialises in palaeontology).
Where prophecy is discussed I think it interesting to note it as a product at best of intuitive imagination, strictly speaking, and equally interesting to investigate the circumstance of predictions. Aldous Huxley for example was habitually stoned on hard drugs and wrote a sci-fi novel...which in 1923 not only predicted escalators, suspended electric monorails and the IVF program but described them in such tremendous detail upon reading this tome I felt as if a product of the 19th century had somehow travelled in time to comment upon the technologies of today. Sigmund Freud was addicted to the same drugs and thought up what was soon hailed as "the religion of the 20th century," probably more in an effort to subjectively understand himself than anything else. And in 1948 George Orwell thought communism would take over the world, he didn't think about the economics of totalitarianism and yet his book "1984" is often regarded as also somewhat prophetic (perhaps in terms of what could have happened, or the folly of political totalitarianism as a natural course of developing government, in general).
Many astonishing predictions have occured, many extremely wise observations. I think the line to prophecy is crossed when someone makes these a solid claim, but I'm not against it as a form of personal belief.
This may or may not be off topic. You know in Israel, if someone claims to be the Messiah from what I've heard (yes this is anecdotal and not to be taken as a stated fact), it is legislated they must be taken seriously. The individual is rigorously interviewed and investigated just in case he/she is. Of course the risk for those running around claiming to be the Messiah is that where proven not to be by satisfactory argument, they generally wind up committed to a sealed institution. Nevertheless many people continue to claim they are the Messiah each year, and each is taken seriously.
Heard about that on a radio science show I used to listen to back in about 1998, iirc some guest speakers were discussing it, but it is a pretty informal radio show and I've not done any research into it. This has just stuck in mind as one of those interesting things you hear, which I remember when thinking about prophets and such.