aliens revisited

i wanna clarify a previous post regarding aliens. here is what introducing aliens into the picture does. what i'm saying is that when you turn the cultural lens on science now, it's only on humans. by having aliens, when you turn the cultural lens on aliens, you then have something to compare humans with. at first glance, this could be considered irrelevant because both have their own cultures, and this is similar to studying science done in a foreign country vs. america. however, the difference is that social science, by claiming all of humanity, still views different human cultures on this planet to be under social science's domain. so even an american has the ability *to be* a foreign scientist, and the body of knowledge created by both is a reflection of humanity regardless of culture. no human has the ability *to be* an alien, only the ability *to know*. so, instead of social science being reduced to science with both have an end goal of a "full knowing" of *to be*, by introducing aliens, you only have a "full knowing" of *to know*. to refer back to the the american scientist vs. foreign scientist analogy, social science within a culture would be a full knowing of to be, but cross-culturally only a full knowing of to know. within social science, you would have first-order science within a culture and second-order cross-culturally. as to the nature of knowledge, this would imply a first-person ontology for intracultural/first-order knowledge and a third person ontology for intercultural/second-order knowledge.

why does this matter? because if both aliens and humans study the same subjects -- for example, chemistry and physics -- then the natures of their discoveries would both be first-order, and differences in their interpretations of these scientific discoveries could be sorted out by either a combination of aliens and humans, or by a third party of new martians. social science discoveries, on the other hand, are only first-order within a culture (intracultural); when examined by anyone outside the culture, it is second-order because of third person ontology. similarly, with aliens vs humans, the same concept applies, except instead of comparing cultures, you're comparing species.

the big question then remains: are discoveries exclusively of the first-order "better" than those that are second-order? ontologically, first person ontology implies a direct path of "knowing", whereas third person ontology implies a less direct path of knowing, for one is "knowing" vicariously, e.g. "knowing of to know". a second question is whether first-order discoveries are actually exclusively first-order, or, due to relativity, are just closer to being a first-order than second-order, but are not first-order in and of themselves. translated into laymen's terms, this amounts to, "how close is true first-order science to the truth of the universe as seen through the eyes of god?"

addendum:

why are aliens necessary? aren't they the equivalent of foreign scientists operating in a social science framework that only classified intracultural as first-order (knowing) and intercultural as second-order (knowing how to know)? the answer is simple. first of all, using a social science framework that only classifies intracultural as first-order is inherently racist and denies the face that we are still the same species. the reason i place an emphasis on species for differentiation has to do with the idea of *being*, which ties in to *knowing* on the *to know/to be spectrum*. regardless of race, people of opposite sexes within a species can reproduce, thus passing a part of their *being* on to the next generation. this is impossible to do with cross-species. furthermore, if one believes in evolution, then we are already genetically related to everyone else in the world, thus reinforcing the idea of *being* existing cross-culturally. this idea of *being* is then used by social scientists to "turn the cultural lens" on science in an effort to reduce it; the effect becomes even more profound when considering *being* as part of the *to know/to be spectrum*. by eliminating the idea of vicarious *being* via introduction of an alien species, the cultural lens is rendered useless across different species, as the nature of *being* for each species is distinctly different, having no genetic ties in common, and the *to know/to be spectrum* is enhanced, this time in the opposite direction, with the knowledge gained from investigation and discovery being as independent as the *beings* are for the two or more separate species. in short, the introduction of a different species shatters the reflexive ability of the cultural lens to cripple its own species' methodology, and is replaced by a battle of relativity among two or more separate species. since the cultural lens can only operate within a species, it can still be used on different species, but cultural effects can be adequately gauged by comparing the research of the different species.

here's an example to consider: the reduction of consciousness to non-conscious entities amounts to reducing the discipline of philosophy to that of hard science. without aliens, the cultural lens comes in and nullifies the research done by scientists, as they are *reflexively* studying themselves by studying the components that are believed to somehow interact on some level to cause consciousness; both their knowing and being are intertwined with what they are studying, and how much doing so taints the pure objective standards of the research rests in the minds of the postmodernist theorists. by studying themselves, there is no difference between the goals of science and social science. enter aliens. for the sake of this argument, let's assume these aliens have life based on inorganic, synthetic elements, but still are conscious and have a capacity for language. when they study organic materials believed to cause human consciousness, aliens are not studying themselves; there is no conflict between knowing and being for them here because they are not composed of these organic elements. as such, there is no reflexivity in their research. furthermore, let's assume that they are indestructible and live forever. this, for all intents and purposes, eliminates ethical questions regarding their research and allows them to experiment for the sake of experimentation. in attempting to arrive at the truth without considering consequences, their intentionality of science is only based on intellectual biases, not on biases relative to their own well-being since their well-being has been predetermined to be ensured independent of their research.

but let's assume now that they are composed of organic elements: does the introducing of an alien species still manage to free science from the cultural lens? well, let's consider the idea of *being* for science in the post world war ii era. surely, as a species, humans want to continue their existence as long as possible through the passing on of genetic material. as such, even when humans study things that they are not composed of, these things have relevance to human society, and thus are still included in the idea of reflexivity. now, the aliens have a culture of their own. certainly, the interests these aliens have in science is still a culture and can have a separate cultural lens turned on it. however, the idea of *being* and the research we are doing being ultimately reducible to human needs and wants is nullified by having these aliens around. instead, our research starts addressing not just the needs and wants of humans relative to the aliens, but also the needs and wants of aliens relative to humans; the exclusivity by which humans had previously defined knowing and being has been erased. by turning the reflexive nature of human knowing and being into a contrast and comparison of relativity between two species, the cultural lens specific to each species is rendered useless and only can be used when functioning in the context of each individual species. when the two species are contrasted and compared, a sort of meta cross-cultural lens naturally and implicitly evolves, and the constant communication between the two species, if not putting the research on the first-order level, at least in theory should cause it to reach as closely as humanly *and* "alienly" possible. as such, the meta-cultural lens is really more along the lines of the eyes/mind of god than some sort of postmodernist device by which to trick everyone into believing that hard science is at the mercy of social science and culture.