You are on the right track w/ idealism vs materialism in psychology, at least.
The question there arose from the brain: how do you rectify the mind/soul with the brain/body? Dualism apparently fails (the idea that there is a separate mind from the brain) which leaves only some form of monism. A sort of hybrid materialism-idealism seems to make the most sense, where consciousness is a property of the universe, like time or space, and different entities have differing consciousnesses. In that sort of a philosophy, when talking about the brain of a person you are equally talking about the experience that person is having, just in different terms.
I suspect that in sociology that would be some sort of unified anarcho-marxism, if such a thing exists. The atomic theory of society seems to be the thing where they are working on unifying language. If society is fully atomized, asking whether a new society arises due to free choice or resource demands is like asking whether rivers rise due to rain or sewer overflow, if that makes sense?
I'm glad to be able to be of appreciation, as I know how that is - looks like you are in the right place to discuss political science though!
In the interest of conversation, maybe you can explain or point me to an explanation of why Anarchism vs. Marxism is considered "idealism vs materialism" in sociology?
In Psychology, we had an "idealism vs materialism" debate, but it is mostly resolved with a sort of "idealistic materialism" or "materialistic idealism" where, essentially, "idealism <=> materialism", as I understand it.
I'm curious about what the current state of the art is, in that debate!
Either way, I'll definitely spend some time in !politics checking things out.
A good rule of thumb is to measure twice, cut once, so perhaps give it a try twice: once where you answer philosophically and once where you answer practically?
I'm due for taking it again, myself, but I generally consider myself a radical moderate (I'm all for system-wide changes) and I think Pew described me as "faith and family left" when I last took the test.
I'm curious how universal these political typologies could be made. I'm sure this one might apply a great deal to a number of western countries, if you change the names accordingly, etc.
It helps those that know how to read the text… It clearly states that those are Pr-Pr dumbbells in the PrScO3 lattice that you are seeing. Also, you should be seeing some O-Sc-O triplets, but I didn’t look for them.
This is a picture of a crystal of a molecule made up of three different types of atoms.
“The high–spatial resolution phase image of Fig. 2A is borne out by quantitative analysis. In real space, the Pr–Pr dumbbells with a separation of only 59 pm are resolved with a contrast of 63% (Fig. 2B), which is better than the 73% contrast for two point objects separated at the Rayleigh criterion. Therefore, the Rayleigh resolution of the image is much better than 59 pm. Nevertheless, the exact resolution can be determined only after considering the finite atomic size instead of assuming point objects (28). We can also resolve the O–Sc–O triple atom projections, even though the light O atoms are only 63 pm (26) from the heavier Sc atoms “