[lbo-talk] Note of thanks

[Philip Pilkington]

>
> I would suggest that in following discussions concerning
> whether such and such a thinker is a positivist it might
> be useful to keep in mind the typology of positivism that
> Russell Keat presented in his 1981 book *The Politics of Social Theory*.
> There, he provided the following typology of positivist theses in social
> theory:
>

Let's be honest though. Why did "positivism" grow as a movement?

The essential reason was to provide a "positive" basis for the human
sciences. What does this mean? Well, it essentially means being able to
argue from a non-disputable standpoint, right? From a standpoint which is
"right".

Let's not kid ourselves. Positivism is a logical method to exclude argument
(which is anathema to the dialectical method).

Positivism is what you can prove... really? It seems to me that positivism
is a method which allows for that which you can prove... within the sphere
of positivism. There's no creation here, there's no change... I always found
it interesting that positivism grew at approximately the same time as
Einstein was fucking with physics.

Was relativity discovered through experiment, conservatism and proof? No...