Relativism in Geomorphology

Document Type : Full length article

Authors

1 Professor of Geomorphology, Faculty of Geographical Science and Planning, University of Isfahan

2 Associate Professor of Geomorphology, Department of Geomorphology, Kharazmi University

3 Associate Professor of Geomorphology, Department of Geomorphology, Kharazmi University n

4 PhD Student in Geomorphology, Kharazmi University

Abstract

Introduction
One of the most important issues in development of any scientific discipline including geomorphology is introduction of new viewpoints and special conceptualization. Introduction of relativism in philosophy, language and sociology has brought about deep evolutions in the epistemology of the research methodology in these sciences. Although this viewpoint was already introduced in geomorphology by the American scientist G.K. Gilbert one hundred and thirty years ago, temporal conditions did not let the development and understanding of the conceptions for others. Recognition of Gilbert’s views and its comparison with relativism concepts in this age can familiarize us with Gilbert’s thought and the evolutions it made in relativism concept. Besides, it can prevent us from considering Gilbert’s relativism to be in parallel with many concepts introduced by others. 
The purpose of this article is to understand the depth of Gilbert’s transcendental meditation and the difference of his opinion with the dominant scientific thinking in the era of Davis. Obviously, to know the angles such insights can enrich new ways in the epistemological and theoretical literature of the geomorphology.
 
Materials and Methods
To recognize the concept of Relativism and compare it with Gilbert’s opinion, it is necessary to check the works of prominent persons in different fields of knowledge on this subject. After theoretical basic review of the relativism, four characters in this field were selected with quite clear and obvious ideas. They were Hans Gadamer (Hermeneutics), Albert Einstein (Physics), Ludwig Bertalanffy (Systems), and Mulla Sadra (Mysticism and illumination). Then, their original texts about the concept of the relativism were separated and their views were analyzed. Finally, we compared them with Gilbert’s opinion and explained their differences and similarities. 
 
Results and Discussion
The relativism has not been expressed in the fields of knowledge and methodology nor even as a skill in a common concept. In general, it can be mentioned in ten whole meanings. Some try to limit it to philosophical issues and others treat it as a method.
A. Relativism in the view of Sophists
In this view of the relativism, the principle of non-contradiction, diverse readings and multi-voice are recognized and it is based on denying the existence of truth and fact.
B. Hermeneutics
Every commentator understands the effect of his/her experiences different from those of the others. In other words, understanding and interpretation is a function of semantic horizon of the commentator, and this is nothing except "Relativism" in understanding.
C. Sapir-Whorf’s Relativism
This theory explains another aspect of the relativism. Hence, people do not take an equal understanding from a single external mental phenomenon, unless they have similar Language background.
C. Scientific Relativism (Einstein)
Concepts such as time, place and gravity are considered different based on the physical condition they were considered. They are regarded to have a variant nature. In other words, based on this theory, there is no absolute time, and consequently, nor any absolute temporal coincidence. Moreover, time is not the same in the two systems that are not connected to each other.
D. Relativism systemic in epistemology
The external existence of phenomena and their objectivity are authenticated. Frist special totality is supposed as the system. Then, each of the elements is evaluated with the other elements or with the whole system.
Q. Allometric
In this view, efforts of the researcher are focused on the understanding of the relations of these phenomena with each other.
E. Divine Relativism
This Relativism expresses how a phenomenon and its emanation are effective on the observer’s understanding.
F.Genette relativism
This Relativism expresses that a researcher is not affected by the recognition phenomenon.
G. Relativism in scale
This technique considers the view point of cognition within the framework of special relativity and uses it to describe the reality of object.
J. Gilbert’s of Relativism in Geomorphology
The understanding of a phenomenon depends on the observer and his/her thought, and the cognition cannot be treated as rigid and absolute matter. According to the researcher’s previous take of science, his/her conclusion about a phenomenon is different.
Comparison between the 9 relativism trends and Gilbert’s relativism has resulted in the following findings (similarities and differences between each trend and Gilbert’s relativism):
Comparison between Sophistēs’ relativism and Gilbert’s relativism
- Human’s thought background is the criterion for knowledge.
- They acknowledge objective and experimental realities.
Comparison between hermeneutists’ relativism and Gilbert’s relativism
-          Introduction of “mental background” and researcher “outcome” in the knowledge of phenomena is emphasized.
 
Comparison between Sapir–Whorf’s relativism and Gilbert’s relativism
-          Researcher “outcome” is influential on the knowledge of phenomena.
 
Comparison between scientific relativism and Gilbert’s relativism
-          Different objective data derived from a single phenomenon result in the relativism in knowledge.
 
Comparison between relativism in systemic epistemology and Gilbert’s relativism
- Relationship between the phenomena is by its own an expression of relativism.
- They also believe in the denial of the necessity of structure in the phenomena.
Comparison between relativism in Allometry and Gilbert’s relativism
-          Relationship between phenomena is apart from the supervisor’s mind.
Comparison between Sacred relativism and Gilbert’s relativism
-          Part of the knowledge in the person who knows is related to what is known.
Comparison between Genetic relativism and Gilbert’s relativism
-          In Gilbert’s viewpoint, knowledge depends on the researcher.
Comparison between Relativism in scale and Gilbert’s relativism
-          In Gilbert’s view, relativism is not digital and numerical.
 
Conclusion:
The results indicated that:

Gilbert is the first geomorphologist who has applied the concept of relativism transcendentally and deeply in his methodology 130 years ago (1886).
Ten independent concepts of epistemic relativism have been used in various systems.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

آزاد، ع.؛ نقی‌زاده، ح. و مسعودی، ج. (1393). حقیقت در حکمت متعالیة ملاصدرا و هرمنوتیک فلسفی گادامر، آموزه‏های فلسفة اسلام/ پژوهش‏ها، دانشگاه علوم اسلامی ‏رضوی، پاییز و زمستان، 15: 3 ـ 30.
بدخشان، ا. و آزموده، ح. (1391). بازاندیشی نسبیت زبانی با رویکرد شناختی و استناد بر داده‏های زبان فارسی، فصلنامة علمی‌- پژوهشی زبانوادبفارسی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد سنندج،  4(11): 1 ـ 28.
برتالنفی، لودویک فون (1366). مبانی،تکامل،وکاربردهاینظریةعمومیسیستم‏ها، ترجمة کیومرث پریانی، تهران: نشر تندر.
بیدهندی، م. (1385). مفهوم حقیقت در اندیشة ملاصدرا و هایدگر، فصلنامة خردنامةصدرا، 45: 15 ـ 31.
پاپلی یزدی، م. (1382). ایدئولوژ‏های حاکم بر جغرافیای ایران، فصلنامة تحقیقات جغرافیایی، 18(4): 5 ـ 35.
رامین، ف. (1391). نظریۀ کوانتوم و برهان نظم، مجلة فلسفهوکلاماسلامی، 45(2): 85 ـ 108.
رهبر، م. (1392). کنترل ذره در جهان کوانتومی، فصلنامة رشدآموزشفیزیک، 28(102): 3 ـ 6.
شاله، ف. (1323). شناختروش‏هایعلومیافلسفةعلمی، ترجمة یحیی مهدوی، چ 2، تهران: نشر تابان.
شیرازی، ص.م. (1990). الحکمةالمتعالیةفیالاسفارالعقلیةالاربعه، جزء دوم، بیروت: داراحیاء التراث العربی.
طباطبایی، م. (بی تا).اصولفلسفهوروشرئالیسم، جلد اول- دوم- سوم، انتشارات دارالعلم قم.
غفارنژاد، ح. (1388). نسبیتخاصانیشتیننظریه‏هاوکاربردها، سمنان: نشر نفیس.
گلی مختاری، ل. (1391). آلومتری در ژئومورفولوژی، رسالة دکتری، استاد راهنما محمدحسین رامشت، رشتة ژئومورفولوژی، دانشگاه اصفهان، دانشکدة علوم جغرافیایی و برنامه‏ریزی.
لطفی، م. (1393). بررسی و نقد معناشناسی قرآنی ایزوتسو، دو فصلنامة علمی‌- پژوهشی پژوهش‏هایزبان‌شناختیقرآن، 3(2): 39 ـ 52.
محمدپور، احمد (1389). روشدرروشدربارةساختمعرفتدرعلومانسانی، چ 2، تهران: نشر جامعه‌شناسان.
محمدرضایی، م. و فولادی، ع. (1388). واژة استعلایی در فلسفة کانت، فلسفةدین، 6(6): 81 ـ 93.
محمودی، ط. (1394). تأثیر عوامل ژئومورفیک بر هویت مکانی، رسالة دکتری، استاد راهنما محمدحسین رامشت، رشتة ژئومورفولوژی، دانشگاه اصفهان، دانشکدة علوم جغرافیایی و برنامه‏ریزی.
نصری، ع. (1383). عناصر فهم در اندیشة گادامر، پژوهشنامة فلسفةدین، 2(4): 55 ـ 65.
نعمت‏الهی، ف. (1393). فضای ترامتنی در ژئومورفولوژی، جغرافیاوبرنامه‌ریزیمحیطی، 25(ا): 109 ـ 120.
واعظی، ا. (1385). درآمدیبرهرمنوتیک، چ 3، تهران: سازمان انتشارات پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و اندیشة اسلامی.
Azad, A.; Naqizadeh, H. and Masoudi, J. (2014). “Truth” in Transcendent Philosophy of Mulla Sadra and Gadamer’s Philosophical Hermeneutics, Islamic Philosophi, autumn and winter 15, :3-30.
Baghramian, M. (2004). The problems of philosophy Relativism, First published by Routledge 2 Park Square.
Badakhshan, E. and Azmodhe, H. (2012). Rethinking linguistic relativity based on cognitive and Persian language data, Persian Language and Literature Quarterly Journal, Islamic azad University, Sanandaj Branch.
Beebe, James R. (2010). Moral Relativism in Context, Wiley Periodicals, NOUˆ S, 44(4): 691-724.
Bernstein, R. (1988). Beyonode Iectivism and Relativism: an Overviev, University of Pennsylvania press.
Bertalanffy, L.V. (1973). Basic, Evolution and applications General System Theory, Translated by Keomars Paryani, First Printing, Publishing Tondar, Tehran.
Bidhendi, M. (2006). A Critical Study of the Concept of “Truth” in Mulla Sadra and Heidegger, Kheradnameh Sadra, 45: 15-30.
Bohm, D. (1990). A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter, Philosophical Psychology, 3(2): 271-286, DOI: 10.1080/09515089008573004.
Brogaard, B. (2012). Moral Relativism and Moral Expressivism, The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 50(4).
Chorley, Richard. J. (1962). Geomorphology and General Systems Theory, United States Government Printing Office, Washington.
Davis, William M. (1899). The Geographical Cycle, The Geographical Journal, 14(5): 481-504.
Dehnel, P. (2015). Wittgenstein and Conceptual Relativism, In C. Kanzian, J. Mitterer, K. Neges (eds.), Realism – Relativism – Constructivism: Contributions of the 38th International Wittgenstein Symposium (pp. 65-67). Kirchberg am Wechsel: Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society.
Gadamer, H-G. (1960). Truth and Method, Trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall, Rev. Ed. London: Continuum.
Ghaffarnejad, H. (2009). Einstein's special relativity Theory and applications, First Printing, Publishing Nafiss, Semnan.
Gilbert, G.K. (1886). The inculcation of scientific method by example, With an illustration drawn from the Quaternary geology of Utah, Am.J.Sci, 31: 284-299.
Goli Mokhtari, L. (2012). Alometry in Geomorphology, PHD Dissertation, Supervisor of Mohammad Hosein Ramesht, Field of Geomorphology, the University of Isfahan.
Hacking, I. (1982). Language, Truth and Reason, in Rationality and Relativism, eds. M. Hollis and S. Lukes, Oxford: Blackwell.
Hales, Steven D. (2011). A Companion to Relativism, Published Blackwell.
Heidegger, M. (1988). Being and Time, Translated Macquarrie, John and Robinson,Edward, Basil Black well.
Kay, P. and Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?, The American 0002-7294/84/010065- 15$2.00/1 Anthropological Association.
Kolbel, M. (1999). Saving relativism from its savior, Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofia, XXXI(91): 91-103.
Kox, A.J.; Klein, Martin J. and Schulmann, R. (1997). The collected papers of Albert Einstein, 6: 146-200, Princeton University Press, DOC. 30
Leavitt, J. (2010). Linguistic relativity: Language Diversity and Modern Thought Sapir, Lee, and Whorf pp. 133-153, Cambridge University Press.
Lotfi, M. (2014). Critical review on Izutsu Quranic semantics, Linguistic Research in the Holy Quran, 3(2): 39-52.
Mahmoodi, T. (2014). Geomorphological factors impact on local identity, PHD Dissert Four ation, Supervisor of Mohammad Hosein Ramesht, Field of Geomorphology,the University of Isfahan.
Marletta, M. (2014). Semantic Incommensurability and Alethic Relativism, Minerva - An Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 18: 142-160, ISSN 1393-614X.
Miller, Christian B. (2002). Rorty and Moral Relativism, European Journal of Philosophy, 10(3), 354- 374. DOI: 10.1111/1468- 0378.00166.
Mohammadpur, A. (2010). Method for Method on Structure of Knowledge in Humanities, Second Printing, publishing Jameshnasan, Tehran.
Mohammadrezae, M. and Foladi, A. (2008). Transcendental in Kant’s Philosophy, Journal Philosophy of Religion, spring, 6(1): 81-93.
Mosteller, Timothy M. (2006). Relativism in Contemporary American Philosophy MacIntyre, Putnam, and Rorty.
Nasri, A. (2005). Elements of Understanding in Gadamer’s Thought, Philosophy Of Religion Research, 2(4): 55-65.
Nematollahy, F. (2014). Space-transtextuality in Geomorphology, Geography and Environmental Planning, 25(1): 109-120.
Omotehinwa T.O. and Ramon S.O. (2013). Fibonacci Numbers and Golden Ratio in Mathemtics and Science, International Journal of Computer and Information Technology, (ISSN: 2279-0764), 02(04): 630-638.
Papoli Yazdi, M. (2003). Dominant Ideologies on Geography Iran, Geographical Research Quarterly, 18(4): 5-35.
Park, S. (2014). Cultural Relativism and the Theory of Relativity, Filosofija. Sociologija. T., 25(1): 44-51, Republic of Korea.
Quintelier, Katinka J.; Fessler, P. and Daniel, M.T. (2012). Varying versions of moral relativism: the philosophy and psychology of normative relativism, Biol Philos, 27:95-113, DOI 10.1007/s10539-011-9270-6.
Rahbar, M. (2013). The control of the particle in Quantum world, Journal of Physics Education, 28(102): 3-6.
Ramin, F. (2012). Quantum Theory and the Intelligent Design Argument, Islamic Philosophy & kalam, 45(2): 85-108.
Rancourt, Benjamin T. (2015). Epistemic relativism and semantic blindness, Syntheses, 192:859-876, DOI 10.1007/s11229-014-0611-2.
Ricoeur, P. (1974). The conflict of Interpretations, North Western university press.
Sack, D. (1992). New wine in old bottles: the historiography of a paradigm change, Geomorphology, 5, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. Amsterdam, 251-263.
Sarkissian, H.; Park, J. and Tien, D. (2011) Folk Moral Relativism, Mind and Language, 26(4): 482-505.
Schaff, P. (1890). Augustin's City of God and Christian Doctrine, Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
Schafer, K. (2012). Assessor Relativism and the Problem of Moral Disagreement, The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 50( 4): 602-20, DOI: 10.1111/j.2041-6962.2012.00140.x.
Schrodinger, E. (1950). Space - Time Structure, Published by the syndics of the Cambridge university press, Bently House, N.W.I.
Shaleh, F. (1944). Understanding the methods of science or philosophy of science, Translated by Yaya Mahdavi, Second Printing, publishing Taban, Tehran.
Shirazi, S.M. (1990). Transcendental wisdom in four Rational travelling, Second part, Restoration Altras Al Arabi Beirut.
Tabatabaei, M.H. (1980). Principles and Methods of Realism, Islamic publishing office of the Qom Seminary Teachers Tehran.
Vaezi, A. (2006). An Introduction to Hermenutic, Publishing Publisher thoughts Organization of the Islamic Culture Research Publications Tehran.
Whorf, Benjamin L. (1956). Language, Mind and Reality, Edited and with an introduction by John B. Carroll, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts, The M.I.T.PRESS.
Wolff, Phillip and Holmes, Kevin J. (2011). Linguistic relativity, WIREs Cognitive Science Vol. 2, DOI: 10.1002/wcs.104.
Physical Geography Research
Volume 49, Issue 1
April 2017
Pages 1-20

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 13 March 2016
  • Revise Date: 12 November 2016
  • Accept Date: 13 November 2016

Share

How to cite

Statistics