Digloria writes to Paul Rosenberg in response to his comment
Paul: PoMo, with its (non-exclusive) binary obsessions construes itself both as positivist and anti-positivist: positivist in its emulation of science (the jargon is the evidence of this, not its essence) and anti-positivist in its arguments, which totally overlook the posibility of construing science on non-positivist grounds.
DiGloria (AKA SnitgrRl, AKA Kelley AKA Ripley): not all pomo can be characterized as anti-science in the way you've done here. you might want to look at the work of *social scientists* who've had to wrestle with this question in serious ways. Sandra Harding's Whose Science, Who's Knowledge would certainly be a place to start. Richard Harvey Brown's work on the Rhetorical Construction of Sociological Truths as well as Norman Denzin's work which I can't think of off the top of my head.
Doyle What is positivism and what is not science that is positivist? The charge as used by Pomo's is so groundless and meaningless except as a moral fable in most of the useages I have seen. Please explain this this ideological orthodoxy (positivism) one can sport with that I don't adhere to, but can be charged with and not have the slightest idea what the hell the charge means.
Explain this to me, besides going to social "scientists" for their view where I have to spend my life reading Lacan to find out what the hell someone is talking about. Is it possible for biologist to do science? Or union representatives? Or house wives? Or construction workers? Or writers? ; Where is the dividing line? What makes positivism so ubiquitous that a person doesn't know they are positivists when they can know they aren't a Baptist? Or Republican, or Latin Capitalist? What what what what?. regards, Doyle Saylor