As to whether postpositivist analytic philosophers "all" reject the analytical-synthetic distinction and the fact-value distinction, "all" is a strong word. I'd say that most of us trained at the high-powered analytical schools are more less Quinean, which doesn't mean necessarily, that you don't think there are any necessary truths or truths in virtue of meaning (sorry about the double negative), but that you think that necessity and analyticity are relative. Some statements have more of it than others.
As to the fact-value distinction, although _I_ think that Quinean principles totally undermine it in the same way as the A/S distinction, a lot of philosophers put a lot of weight on it, including,e.g., Donald Davidson, a pragmatist philosopher (so he says) who is generally named in the same breath as Quine as a major figure of postpositivist neopragmatism. I think D is overrated, but he's clearly a major figure. So rejection of the latter is more controversial.
--jks
>From: "Michael McIntyre" <mmcintyr at wppost.depaul.edu>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Subject: Positivism [was Re: Ethical foundations of the left]
>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:03:39 -0500
>
>I've heard that analytic philosophers are all post-positivists now, but I'm
>not sure the word has reached the social sciences. Lots of folks I studied
>with were still willing to call themselves positivists. John Mearsheimer
>calls himself a "logical positivist". David Laitin calls himself a
>"neo-positivist". On the other hand, Henry Brady, whom most would tar with
>the brush refuses to call himself a positivist. So maybe we need a quick
>survey of the territory. My third-hand [and quite likely wrong]
>understanding is that analytic philosophers of all stripes now reject a
>distinction between analytic and synthetic statements, and between
>statements of fact and statements of value. Those distinctions, however,
>are still at the heart of state-of-the-art books on social science research
>design. (I have King, Keohane and Verba's _Designing Social Inquiry_ in
>mind). So perhaps positivism isn't entirely dead . . . or it is dead but
>those in the lower reaches of the academy have!
>n't gotten the word yet.
>
>Clarifications Justin?
>
>Michael McIntyre
>
> >>> jkschw at hotmail.com 07/18/01 09:45AM >>>
>Positivist leanings? That's a new one. I'm a pragmatist and a scientific
>realist in the manner of Sellars, Quine, Richard Boyd, the old Hilary
>Putnam
> (circa 1967-75)(at least two stages back), that lot. Of course, all of
>us
>trained in analytical philosophy "come out" of positivism, but that doesn't
>make us us positivists, any more than the fact the Solidarity "comes out"
>of
>groups with Trotskyist politics makes it Trot.
>
>I have developed more respect and appreciation for positivism than I (we)
>had in the 1970s, when it was still hip to beat up on it, and when there
>were positivists of a sort still around. There aren't, really, anymore
>today, except for maybe Larry Sklar at Michigan.
>
>No, I don't accept verificationism of any sort, and I'm a sort of moral
>realist in that I think that ethical claims like "Exploitation is unjust"
>or
>"Freedom is better than slavery" are properly appraised as true or false.
>My
>metaethical position is probably close to that stakes out by Eliz. Anderson
>in Value in Ethics and Economics. I have written a number of papers in
>political ethics, and at least one defending the objectivity of justice.
>
>Btw, the positivists did not "deny the existence of ethics"; they just
>interpreted ethical statements as presciptive. The classical statement is
>C.L. Stevenson's still-wonderful Ethics and Language. My dissertation
>advisor Allen Gibbard--no positivist! (he has written important papers in
>grand metaphysics)--has a brilliant restatement of prescriptivism in his
>book Wise Choices, Apt Feelings.
>
>I think it is odd to describe Rawls as a "dissenting utilitarian." He's not
>a utilitarian of any sort.
>
>I have not read Singer's "Darwinian left," although I have read other of
>his
>books, such as Practical Ethics. I find his flat headed utilitarianism
>rather unpersuasive, although his applied discussions are generally
>interesting and sensitive.
>
>--jks
>
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com