three points on positivism: 1. the Marxist Rudolf Hilferding was (to my mind) a positivist, with his distinction between "Marxism as a science" and "socialism as a moral committment." 2. I think this goes to the heart of positivism: the positivists think that there's a clear distinction between "fact" and "value," so it's possible to be "value free" in one's science. The positivists think that one can separate the observer (the student) from the observed (society), treating themselves as somehow independent of society. To my mind, we are all participant-observers. 3. The positivist story (as I understand it) makes much more sense on the normative level, i.e., as a prescription for how scholars should behave, than on the positive level, i.e., as a description of how scholars actually behave. On the latter, authors such as Kuhn and Lakatos win hands down. Of course, it's well-nigh impossible to separate these two levels. But some sort of committment to non-partisan, critical, thinking is needed. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 The four seasons in California: Drought, firestorm, mudslide, and smog. Attention modern Vivaldis who want a sequel to the seismic suite!
