Several persons have stated that Political Science, and presumably, Sociology, Anthropology, Archeology, History and Psychology are not sciences. The most intelligent and thoughtful post containing this assertion listed thoughtfully the differences between the physical sciences and the social sciences. This was done by "The Fallible Fiend".
It is worth pointing out that chemistry was alchemy a few hundred years ago and most astronomers were actually astrologers. Physics was not a science until we had Newton's three laws.
None of what we call science today was a science four hundred years ago. They became sciences only when accurate empirical observations allowed us to create accurate definitions. Given accurate observation providing accurate definitions acurate analysis became possible and they became sciences.
The difficulties enumerated by the Fiend in the social sciences are quite real. However there is no reason to believe that they are insoluble, nor is there any reason to believe that nothing in the social sciences is actual science today.
These statements reflect a profound personal bias on the part of most members of this forum.
The Fiend admits the value of attempting to find an accurate definition of terrorist. He also accurately describes the difficulties.
DA and Al as usual simply say the idea is nonsense, there is no real difference between a terrorist and a legitimate soldier. Our friends are good guys, people who shoot at us are bad guys. Al pretty much endorses terrorism as a tactic and suggests that we should nuke Syria until it glows. Set a terrorizing example for the rest of Islam.
As a retired Soldier, I naturally disagree with DA and Al. I do not see soldiers as terrorists.
When the Cole was bombed, the word terrorist was used to describe the bombers in another forum. Two persons immediately disagreed. The other was a former marine.
The Cole was a military target. No one was threatened or injured except military personnel. Two professional US trained military personnel immediately refused to call the act a terrorist act.
This is, to some degree, the difference between the US and the terrorists. The kind of indoctrination the US military gets as opposed to the kind of indoctrination terrorists get.
Science is an issue of accurate assessment of the facts, creating accurate terms with accurate definitions based on those facts, then relating those definitions to accepted scientific theory.
It can be applied in social issues as well as physical science issues, even though social issues are much more complex and political pressure much more intense. It should be applied despite those problems.
We should be looking for a definition of terrorist based on factual differences in the behavior and attitude of soldiers and terrorists, and relating those differences to fundamentals of human nature which are best derived from evolutionary pschology.
Terrorism is used to rule through the Stockholm Syndrome.
http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=719&lsel=S This is a very good discussion of the Stockholm syndrome and its role in government up to the last paragraph or two. It applies very clearly to terrorist regimes like that of Saddam Hussein.
It is an ancient and widespread method of government, prevalent in the Middle East since our earliest evidence. It is probably the dominant psychology of Government in Russia throughout its history. It is the alpha male pecking order government at its most extreme.
Republican government depends upon a different artifact of evolutionary psychology. In Republican government the territorial imperative has a strength equal to or greater than pecking order psychology.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1568361440/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-4680912-4613639#reader-link Each full Citizen in a Republic has his own sacred territory in which he is the supreme Alpha Male. He interacts as an equal when dealing with other Alphas in De Re Publica, latin for the Commonwealth or that portion of property and power which is shared by the Citizens.
In a Stockhold Syndrome or autocratic government, property rights are not guaranteed. The Supreme Alpha can violate any subjects rights at any time without question.
No such Supreme Alpha exists in a Territorial Imperative system where each individuals territory is distinct, sacred, and defended by the laws of the state.
Terrorism is a methodology of Stockholm Syndrome social systems. Human rights, especially property rights are an artifact of Territorial Imperative social systems.
Members of Stockholm Syndrome systems have no emotional conception of human rights, property rights, etc. They are totally pecking order oriented. Persons with a background in Republican or Territorial Imperative systems see full Citizens as being invested with certain dignities and rights that no authority can violate with impunity. The two systems are psychologically alien to each other, though both are based on artifacts of human psychology originating in evolution, territoriality and pecking order behavior.
Because Territorial Imperative systems involve the possession of territory, they are typical of the early agrarian semi-rural period of economic development. Such as early Rome of the 13 Colonies. Stockholm Syndrome tends to become dominant in highly rural populations. As in the Roman Principate.
Terrorism is enabled by Stockholm Syndrome or extreme Pecking Order behavior systems because these systems do not recognize the existence of equals and deny any rights to inferiors. Terrorists assume absolute authority as the divine representative of this or that belief system and feel an absolute right to do anything to others needed to advance their beliefs.
The dominant psychology in the US has always been the Territorial Imperative. This may be changing today, but it was true in the past. Thus the US has never been a 'Terrorist' nation.
Now, both sides have 'alpha males'. In a Stockholm Syndrome system, there can be only one. All others must be inferior and obedient to the one. In a Territorial System, there are many, and they learn to interact as equals and allies while respecting each others territory.
This is the fundamental of human rights psychology. That fundamental leads to rules regarding the treatment of others and restraint in how you treat them.
This is an attempt to relate the behavioral difference between terrorists and soldiers to evolutionary psychology. Much of it would be familiar to Jefferson, Adams, and Washington.
