Social constructivism vs Positivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-12-2012, 10:57 AM
RE: Social constructivism vs Positivism
Hey, Chas.

That's a bit of a cop out for two reasons. 1 - The scientific method is only a few hundred years old and positivism younger than that. 2 - While many cultures in the last 2 million years may have employed somerhing analagous to science, many did not. The question is about those peoples. So how does positivism explain those socieites that were successful without science?

Hey, Pool.

I think part of the problem is that it is fuzzy. A clear sign that something is purely ideological is when people say "of course it's true" but cannot begin to explain why. Clear sign that it's received wisdom.

Breed too is a fuzy term that really applies to other animals and flora. It's often used pejoratively. I for example am considered a half breed by some.

The biggest thing about race is that it denotes some sort of absolute difference, when really, there is none. Genetically there is more diversity within the so-called races than between them. What constitutes a race is fuzzy and often arbitrary. The morphological differences are merely the result of genetic drift and, as I am proof of, are shattered instantly by gene flow. There is no genetic basis for the notion of race. It is an invention of the mind.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Messages In This Thread
RE: Social constructivism vs Positivism - Ghost - 22-12-2012 10:57 AM
Forum Jump: