Relativism, like cancer, will not cease spreading till it has destroyed itself through the demise of its host. And it is precisely this self-undermining/destructive process which is slowly but surely killing the intellectual body of the West. Despite having been studiously quarantined 2500 years ago by Greek philosophers, this malignancy has, once again, been allowed to rage with impunity since the 20th century. Thanks to relativists like Thomas Kuhn, Peter Winch, Ludwig von Wittgenstein, Jacques Derrida, etc. we are no longer allowed to make any truth-claims that do not kneel before "an as the measure of all things". This is 'true' for the natural (hard/life) sciences as well as for the social (human) sciences and, equally painful, also for philosophy. Courtesy of Kuhn and the like we are forced to concede that any assertions about the 'rational' growth of scientific knowledge, or assertions about 'better' moral precepts, are spurious. All scientific theories are trapped eternally within incommensurate paradigms, and all moral systems (even those who, for example, further female circumcision) are equal....because all is relative at the end of the day.
But is 'All really relative'? No, and No again! Why? Well, most importantly, all relativist positions are innately self-undermining and therefore rationally untenable. If 'All is relative' then the axiom itself (all is relative) must, to be logically consistent, also be relative, which automatically implies that everything 'outside' that which is relative can be non-relative. Despite being ancient, this critique of Protagorean relativism is as effective today as it was then. As the British philosopher Roger Scruton once so memorably said; "The man who says, 'There is no truth' is asking you not to believe him. So don't!" Hillary Putnam, an American philosopher, summed the inevitable logical quagmire of relativism up even more succinctly; "Relativism just isn't true for me."
But alas; even though it has been proved time and time again that relativism is illogical, it has been allowed to infect and infest all that we, as Westerners, hold intellectually dear. And the need to quarantine it is as dire as never before. In view of the fact that the hard sciences (especially physics) are, due to secularization, still (mostly) our most potent Knight in the search for the Holy Grail (i.e. the quest for knowledge). to make the world a better place), it would be sensible to start any anti-cancer/relativism with them because when they sneeze the social sciences get pneumonia. In short; 'cure' physics of relativism and the immune system of the intellectual West will do the rest. So, let's roll.
As noted by the South African philosopher Anton van Nierkerk, Paul Johnson is probably correct in stating that Eddington's famous test of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity on May 29th, 1919, heralded in the 20th century ideologically. This validation of Einstein's theory literally set the cat out among the relativist pigeons because the, hitherto, 'linear' (standard) view of the growth of scientific knowledge was under siege because the perceived infallibility of Newtonian Mechanics was breached. In short; if Newton was not completely 'right' in the first place (because Einstein 'usurped' him afterwards), how could we then lay down criteria for judging between what is (ultimately) right or wrong about future theories?
Enter cancer Kuhn...with his infamous essay, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which basically boils down to saying that 'All is paradigms', because there are no inter-paradigmatic rules for adjudicating between competing theories (paradigms). Now, despite promulgating a more refined version of relativism called incommensuralism, Kuhn is still guilty of crude Protagorean Relativism in terms of the meta-discourse of his own discursive truth-claim. To explain; if 'All is paradigms' then his axiom (all is paradigms) is also just another paradigm which, given the existence of other paradigms that do not hold that 'All is paradigms', cannot simply claim to be the right (ultimate) paradigm because there are, according to Kuhn, no criteria at hand to choose between competing paradigms. In other words, Kuhn, like Protagoras of old, is inviting us not to believe him.
But despite us being able to show the logical inconsistency of his position, we are still left with his rightful questioning of how science 'grows'. Well, I for one believe it's simply a question of determining (ergo, establishing) redundancy in terms of improved predictability. If we compare Thales' theory/paradigm (the world is made of earth, fire, water and air) to the theory/paradigm of the Greek Atomists (the world is made of atoms) then we notice that the former is also (by approximation) right (i.e. fire, water, etc. are also made up of atoms), but lack the refinement of the latter. The same could be said of Newton and Einstein's theories. To determine redundancy; simply juxtapose competing theories by setting down falsifiability criteria (i.e. Karl Popper's test of scientific validity) according to which the respective elements of competing (contradictory) can be tested. To conclude; why ride Newton's bicycle when you can fly on Einstein? Both are right, but the latter is simply more progressive (refined). There is therefore, I believe, nothing to be gained by holding onto Kuhnian relativism by denying the (evolutionary) growth of scientific knowledge.
In terms of the relativism afflicting the social sciences, things are, thankfully, much less complicated, provided we are not too unsporting when squeezing them into the box of Protagorean Relativism. Take Wittgenstein's relativism ('All is language games') for example. While it is true that there is no 'direct' relationship between a word (the signifying vocal sounds we make) and the object, concept, etc. it signifies, it is not the whole truth, and it is therefore totally irresponsible to imply that onomatopoeias are the only real truths that can be approximated by language. To Wittgenstein's meta-discourse quickly; The 'All' (signifier) in Wittgenstein's own language game ('All is language games') cannot be the signified 'all' in the other language games (e.g. in science) because then there would exist an 'all' signifier which has a direct (non-arbitrary) relationship with all the 'all' signifieds. But this cannot be if we believe Wittgenstein, because he holds that the relationship between signifier and signified is completely arbitrary.
The above critique, obviously, does not, per se, disprove Wittgenstein, but it should illustrate the fact if a truth-claim fails the test of logic consistency then there must, inevitably, be something wrong with it. And maybe it is the following. The value of words lie not solely in the language-game they derive their meaning (and purpose) from, but rather in their ability to act as truth-approximators in the matrix (template) we use to comprehend independent reality with. Language is indeed the house of being, but Robinson Crusoe could've survived without having had to say a single word. The fact that we 'create' language can never make the reality (based mostly on causality) of independent existence arbitrary. In other words, signifieds will do their thing whether we signify (name) them or not. The words banana or danger could be called urk and spurk by Captain Kirk for all independent reality cares, but they'll definitely not lose their purpose because if you ignore the former (i.e. nutrition) you run the risk of invoking the latter (i.e. risk your survival). And it is this survivability which ultimately determines which template ('language-game') approximates the truths (inherent in independent reality) better. For example, we can state with absolute confidence that the language-game of Western medical science is infinitely better suited to approximate the truths in independent reality (in terms of the instrumental actions we take) than, for example, some related Afro-centric voodoo truth-claims (e.g. Thabo Mbeki's claim that AIDS is not caused by a virus). In short; independent reality places constraints on the interaction of the words (language games) we use.
Moving to Peter Winch who, under Wittgenstein's spell, says that 'All is cocoon-bound' in terms of the different rationality criteria (ergo, claims to truth) used in different cultures. In other words, it is just as rational ('true') for South African blacks to regard lightning as a warning from their ancestors that a witch is making the rounds again, as it is for us Westerners to see it as a massive discharge of electricity. Now, in terms of survivability no explanation is needed here except to say that it is much wiser to seek cover when lightning strikes than to seek (hunt) witches in the open. To Winch's meta-discourse; if all is indeed cocoon-bound then Winch's axiom itself (all is cocoon-bound) must be so as well which, of course, leaves open the possibility for other cocoons (cultures) to be 'open' (unbound), because how can he prove that they (other cultures) are, in effect, blind to others as well (i.e. cocoon-bound) when he is blind/ed himself?
To summarize; relativism will always be that what it is namely, relative. For us, in bouts of despair, to make it non-relative is akin to inviting cancer by lying in the sun for years at end. It surely is nice to sit in the sun and not care about the truth, but the inevitable constraints of existence will put an end to that soon enough. Concerning moral dilemmas; to even suggest that, for example, female circumcision is a cultural idiosyncrasy and not a moral travesty, is to already suffer fatally from cancer. And it is something we, as Westerners, simply cannot afford now that our civilization is under threat. I might, as a Christian, be regarded as a cocoon-bound anachronism playing language games in a world in which all (even scientific) truth is relative, but at least I'm absolutely confident that the Christian moral imperative, do unto others as you would want them to do unto you, can sort out the abovementioned moral dilemma in the blink of an eye. For in the Beginning was the Word which is Final...and not relative to the measure called man.