>>
>>A theoretical problem: if there is no truth, only provisional
constructions
>>of truth, and if there is no master narrative, but only a polyphony of
>>local narratives and situated knowledges, than how can you criticize the
>>official (celebratory) version of history as "false"?
>>
>>Doug
>
>I have no trouble criticizing theories for their effects, without needing
>to argue that they are false. Look at NC theory. I can argue compellingly
>(my previously brainwashed students all or mostly think so) that NC theory
>contributes to a stream of inequities and miseries of all sorts and is
>generally a "bad," without any need to say that it is wrong or false or
>inaccurate.
>
>Blair
I think it's a huge mistake to give up making truth claims about the world.
In the example you cite, the student (or NC economist) can simply respond by
saying, ok, maybe the theory does justify various inequities, etc., but it
is true. In which case you are stuck. Because if it is true, then the
neoclassical policy prescriptions are the best we can do. Many arguments
about social change in general, especially in the classroom, quickly boil
down to differences about the validity of underlying assumptions or
theories-- these days, more often than neoclassical economics it is
sociobiology ("human nature") at the core of conservative arguments. It's
not enough to say that you don't like the implications of their underlying
theory-- if you can't challenge the veracity of it, you will find yourself
in a very weak position against anyone who can carry out a logical argument.
This is one of the big drawbacks of of pomo epistemology that I referred to
earlier.
-------------------------------------
Name: Mark Weisbrot
E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Preamble Center for Public Policy
1737 21st Street NW
Washington DC 20009
(202) 265-3263 (offc)
(202) 333-6141 (home)
fax: (202)265-3647
