Social constructivism vs Positivism
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-01-2013, 11:06 PM
RE: Social constructivism vs Positivism
Hey, fst.

I'm having difficulty with your questions. I really do need you to be more specific and a little more interactive. We're having a conversation. I'm not your monkey.

I don't know how to penetrate the frame of your question. Positivism states that only scientific knowledge is viable. It's a very specific position that isn't shared by other philosophies. I couldn't even venture a guess about what exactly you mean by viable. The only thing I can think to say is that science is not the begining and end of knowledge.

The second part of your question, well, asks the wrong question. It seems rooted int the position that science is king and that it's king because of the qualities it possesses. It seems that if another source of knowledge doesn't possess those particular qualities, then regardless of what qualities it does possess, it's necessarilly worse. I don't at all see the question like that and I'm confused about what any of it has to do with the constructivist view.

I don't know. It just feels like your fishing. Positivism states that there IS no other knowledge that's viable. I sense you're trying to just have that confirmed somehow. I mean, really, your question has nothing to do with constructivism from what I can tell.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

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 - 07-01-2013 11:06 PM
Forum Jump: