Relativism in Geomorphology

One of the important issues in the development of any kind of knowledge including Geomorphology is the introduction of new viewpoints and special conceptualization in that field. Introduction of relativism in philosophy, language and sociology has brought about deep evolutions in the epistemology of the research methodology and the utility of these sciences. Although this viewpoint was traditionally introduced in Geomorphology first by the American scientist G.K. Gilbert one hundred and thirty years ago, temporal conditions did not provide for the development and understanding of the depth of his 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 recognition of 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 Geomorphology.
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 Relativism, four characters in this field having quite clear and obvious ideas were selected. 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 Relativism were separated and their views were analyzed. Finally, we compared them with Gilbert’s opinion and extracted their differences and similarities.
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 method.
A. Relativism in the view of Sophists
In this 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 these of the others. In other words, understanding and interpretation are a function of semantic horizon of the commentator, and this is nothing is except "Relativism" in understanding.
C. Sapir-Whorf’s Relativism
This theory explains another aspect of relativism. Based on this, people do not take an equal understanding from a single external mental phenomenon, unless they are similar Language background.
C. Scientific Relativism (Einstein)
Concepts such as time, place and gravity are considered different based on the physical condition they are supervised in. They are regarded to have a changeable 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 (Shaleh, 1346:137).
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 are with the others or with the whole system.
Q. Allometric
In this field, effort of the researcher is focused to understand the relation of the phenomena with each other.
E. Divine Relativism
This Relativism expresses how a phenomenon and its emanation are effective in the observer’s understanding.
F. Genette relativism
This Relativism expresses that a researcher is not affect in the recognition phenomenon.
G. Relativism in scale
This technique consider 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 cognition cannot be treated as rigid and absolute matter. According to the researcher’s previous take of science, his/her conclusion differs from a phenomenon would differ.
Comparison between 9 relativism trends and Gilbert’s relativism 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 in the knowledge of phenomena.
Comparison between scientific relativism and Gilbert’s relativism
- Different objective data derived from a single phenomenon result in relativism in knowledge.
Comparison between relativism in systemic epistemology and Gilbert’s relativism
- Relationship between 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.
The results show that:• Gilbert is the first Geomorphologist who has applied the concept of relativism a transcendentally and deeply in his methodology 130 years ago (1886).
• Ten independent concepts of epistemic relativism have been used in various systems.