Re: positivism (was Re: "rise of china" and wst)

        No, I do not confirm your characterization of what you call
neopositivism.  At least in my version of positivism, forgive the
repetition, truth in any ultimate or final sense is not accessible, but we
can have some knowledge of reality through the logical analysis of sensory
data.  Statements about reality based on such analysis, including social
reality, have cognitive significance, but are never in any sense final,
because it is always possible to alter the rules or methods of analysis
and also to introduce new sensory data or new ways of measuring old
sensory data.  Therefore the natural and social sciences are in a state of
continuous flux, and the generalizations ("laws"?) they propound are
subject to constant re-examination, re-interpretation, and re-statement.
World-system theory is no exception.  No two theorists, whether
Wallerstein, Frank, Arrighi, Chase-Dunn, Sanderson, or anyone else, offer
identical versions of the theory, and we should not expect the utterances
of any single theorist to remain the same throughout a life-time of
inquiry.  And of course world-system theory itself should not be
essentialized, since it draws upon and at various edges shades into many
other ways of looking at the human world.
        
        But not all statements are based on the logical analysis of
sensory data.  Philosophy traditionally includes metaphysics,
epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics.  Traditionally, these disciplines
have dealt in truth-claims:  claims as to what is really real, what is
truly true, what is absolutely good, and what is sublimely beautiful.
Logical positivism asserts that all statements of this character are
cognitively meaningless.  They are not "senseless" (read "foolish" or
"silly").  They are simply not based on analysis of sensory data.  They
express preferences, options, the values of the asserter.  I adhere to
this view.  This does not mean that statements of value are unimportant.
On the contrary, behavioral science gives us every reason to believe that
many human beings find it necessary to make such statements and even try
to live in accordance with them.  Speaking for myself, I find that I can
comfortably dodge metaphysical and epistemological issues--most of the
time--but I cannot get through the day without some attention to issues of
ethics and aesthetics.  

        Nevertheless, it is my reading of world history that when this or
that group of people decide what is really real or truly true or
absolutely good and ground such decisions in science, or philosophy, or
theology, they tend to insist that everybody else share their decisions
and in one way or another live by them.  My hope is that some day human
beings will stop generating these illusions and decrees and arrive at a
viable voluntary consensus on values mediated perhaps by an evolving will
to agree.  This is a utopian hope, in Karl Mannheim's sense of utopia, but
it gets me through the day--so far!

        Cheers,

        Warren



On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Boris Stremlin wrote:

> Perhaps I haven't been clear, or perhaps I've tried to bite off too much;
> I was merely trying to say that positivism either imposes its own
> calculus on the whole of reality (Comtean variety) or, as I now
> understand, it simply defines truth in such a way as to render all
> statements (and actions) that do not fall under the purview of its
> calculus "senseless" (neopositivism).  That was the impression I got from
> reading the article on Ayer, and Prof. Wagar seems to have confirmed it.  
> So yes, I agree, there seems little point in carrying on.
> 
>