On Wed, 11 Jan 1995 09:56:16 -0800 Justin Schwartz said: (first quoting me) >> 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. > >Positivism is much more complex than this... I knew that, even though I have a very incomplete understanding of positivism. (Thanks for helping me make that understanding more complete.) I just think that the absolute subject/object split is the "heart" of positivism. I'm not sure whether or not one can say the same thing for logical positivism, since the difference between LP and mere P is unclear to me. (I'll have to call up my brother, the philosopher and anti-abortionist, but no: it's better to learn from Justin.) >Incidentally positivists are not commited to the idea that scientific >inquiry and inquirers can be somehow pulled out of their social >circumstances. Max Weber,a positivist in some of these senses, though not >a logical positivist, put the point by noting that the questions inquirers >ask are conditioned by their values and interests, although the >acceptability of the empirical answers they give, he thought, depend >solely on the evidential relations between their theoretical hypotheses >and the data they hope to explain. But this is simply restating the idea that the observer is assumed to be somehow separable from the observed in a different way, no? >> 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. > >I wonder what, if it is impossible to seperate partisanship and >scientific inquiry, is the point of saying that we are normatively >required to do so. Isn't it rather that we don't want to licence quick >inferences from our sense of how things ought to be to the way things are? >The matter is exceedinbgly complicated and difficult. I think that it's almost impossible to be be "objective" or "scientific." However, it's possible to try to be scientific in the non-positivistic sense. To quote a ms. of mine: .. science is radical: it looks for the roots of social problems, seeking to find causes rather than symptoms. This common Marxist vision of science is not sufficient, however. It may be acceptable that Friedman's economics is scientific in these terms (he finds a "natural rate of unemployment" beneath the surface appearances represented by Phillips curve data). But using the criterion alone also includes astrology and the conspiracy theory of history as "scientific." Further, science is a discipline, an anti-dogmatic effort to minimize the role of faith in explanation and understanding, through logical coherence, consistency with empirical evidence, honesty, and completeness. Any conclusions are then merely new working hypotheses to be evaluated theoretically, empirically, and in practice. In this vision, science does not mean the allegiance to certain methods (mathematics, controlled experiments, etc.) as much as an openness to new questions, criticism, and debate.(here's there's a reference to Popper's "critical rationalism".) The bumper-sticker slogan "Question Authority" is thus at the center of scientific discipline. (endquote) I don't think it's possible to be non-partisan. However, one has to try to be on some level in order to avoid being fooled by one's own propaganda. >By the way, Kuhn and Lakatos deny that science is socially interested. They're wrong. If normal science or the "hard core" are arbitrary in some sense, then social interest must play a role in the choice of the normal science or hard core. 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 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante.
