> but that Marx was a
>pretty good example of a scientist in the way I think it ought to be
>understood.
well that you'd say this at all suggests that you have no idea what 'positivism' means and what a nd how folks have used it. positivism doesn't simply equal science. it's far more complicated and has much to do with an attitude toward the *uses* of scientific knowledge. the idea that facts about the social and natural world are apprehendable or that we can look and see what is out there is a variant to empiricism, not to be reduced to positivism, though clearly associated with it. suggestions for further reading if you'd like: Brian Fay, Social Theory and Political Practice. (short and sweet; clear language) Charles Morrow Critical Theory and Methodology.
otherwise, i have no interest in discussing positivism with folks who've read one or two polemics agaisnt anti-positivists and think they know what positivism is by virtue of a critique of anti-positvism. phooey.