[lbo-talk] Note of thanks

[Philip Pilkington]

>
> Probably one needs to clarify the resemblances/differences between
> "psitivism" and "science." They are linked but do not coincide, and to
> attempt to identify social theory as a purely positivist science is, I
> suspect, disastrous. Paul Paolucci has an article in Vol. 11 of
> Historical Materialism which focuses on the extent to which Marx was
> positivist. I haven't read it yet, but it looks valuable.
>

I reckon that "science" has become something of a meaningless signifier
today - if I'm excused from using a term from linguistic "science". It seems
to be more so a notion that conveys authority rather than anything tangible
- like "Dr.", "Professor" or whatever. Not to say that there isn't a manner
in which to approach things objectively, but I'd call the "rational" rather
than "scientific". Try it out:

"Professor Dawkins is scientific but irrational", "Marx is not scientific
but rational", "Phrenologists and socio-geneticists are scientific but
irrational" etc etc