On Sat, 2 Jan 1999 14:09:50 +0000 Jim heartfield
<jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In message <368A4B3A.E5C79EE1 at netlink.com.au>, rc&am
><rcollins at netlink.com.au> objects to my argument that a rejection of
>objectivity would lead one to abandon Marx's critique of capitalism.
>
>But that seems unavoidably to be the case as far as I can see. It is
>interesting that neo-classical economics has been cited as an example
>of
>what positivism is, as if its scientific pretensions were proof of the
>objectivistic caste of contemporary theory.
I seem to recall reading a critique of neoclassical economic theory by the philosopher of science, Mario Bunge. Bunge criticized neoclassical theory on the grounds that its most basic axioms (concerning utility maximization and the like) are not empirically falsifiable. I recall Bunge going as far as to brand neoclassical economic theory as being a psuedo-science in much the way that Popper had branded psychoanalysis for similar reasons. I wonder what the people who call neoclassical economics, "positivist" would have to say about that.
>
>But it should be said that Marx's critique of the pre-cursors of neo-
>classicism, what he called the vulgar economists, was not due to their
>excessive objectivity. To the contrary, Marx attacked them for the
>excessively subjective theory of prices. The cornerstone of Marx's
>critique of economics is the demonstration of the objective laws of
>development of capitalist society, and their self-destructive
>tendency.
Quite right.
>I've watched this thread since I started it, and I am still looking
>for
>one influential thinker who meets the caricature of positivism
>promoted
>by the critics. All of the logical positivists seem to have
>anticipated
>the argument. The social scientists are all Weberians - you would have
>to go back to the Chicago school.
Jim, what do you think is the source of this caricature of positivism that seems so widely accepted by people in the humanities? Why the need for constantly bashing this strawman? It is also evident to me, that many of the people who are constantly bashing positivism have little notion concerning the actual ideas of the logical positivists or of other thinkers who did call themselves positivists. There, seems to be little appreciation for instance of the great diversity of views that existed for instance within the Vienna Circle, nor is there much awareness of the extent to which Circle members like Neurath in fact anticipated many of the ideas that the pomos think they discovered first. (BTW Jim H have you fixed your Web page on analytic philosophy where you had Neurath commissioning Kuhn's _The Structure of Scientific Revolution_? That hardly seems possible since Neurath died in Britain in 1945, whereas Kuhn's book didn't come out until 1962).
>
>Istvan Meszaros recently wrote the following:
>
>'It is by no means accidental that by far the most durable form of
>ideology in the age of globally articulated and technologically
>legitimized capitalism capital is _positivism_...'
>
>Which seems plausible enough until you read his list of examples,
>which
>just don't hold up at all
>
>'...from its early 19th century manifestations (Comte, Taine, neo-
>Kantianism etc.) to "sociologism," "pragmatism," "relativistic
>positivism," "instrumentalism," "juridical positivism," "logical
>positivism," "linguistic analysis," "structural functionalism,"
>"structuralism," etc., and to many fashionable neopositivistic
>"philosophies of science."
The Analytic Marxist, Richard W. Miller exposed this fallacy in his 1984 book, _Analyzing Marx_. He pointed out the progressive politics of most members of the Vienna Circle, as well as the fact that Neurath was a revolutionary Marxist. It is most unfortunate that the Frankfurters and their successors continue to accept it in such an uncritical manner.
>
>What is lurking behind all of these scary quotation marks is the
>painfully obvious fact those schools of thought he mentions (insofar
>as
>they are schools of thought, and not just caricatures) would all
>subscribe to the critique of positivism.
The strongest critiques of positivism came from thinkers who were labeled (or even labeled themselves) positivists. Witness the debates that occurred within the Vienna Circle over the verifiability theory of meaning, or of Neurath's championing of a coherence theory of truth against the correspondence theory. Some of Kuhn's ideas were already anticipated by Circle members like Philipp Frank for instance. While Quine who is often described as having demolished the logical positivist program with his famous essay, "The Two Dogmas of Empiricism," has always considered himself to be a close disciple of Carnap and an admirer of Neurath.
>
>So where exactly are these positivists that everyone is talking about:
>Name me one self-avowed positivist of any note.
Actually, one can name quite a few, at least from the past. But a close examination of their work would indicate that they are far from conforming to the caricature that so many humanists love to hate.
Jim Farmelant
>--
>Jim heartfield
>
___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]