(06-02-2013 10:58 PM)Ghost Wrote: The constructivist view doesn't say that science is bad. It doesn't say that anything is bad. It just explains what we observe.
As far as apples and oranges, Positivism says that science is the best and that everything else is poo. Constructivism says, that is what Positivists think, but that's not objectively true and it's not shared by all cultures.
Quote:Even if all models of reality are effectively wrong, we can conclude that some models are more false than others.
That's a trap because it's only meaningful to people who believe there is an objective truth. Only to them does it matter whether or not one thing is closer to it. It's a bargaining ploy. "OK, we admit that no one has the truth, but our truth is the better wrong truth!"
Box says, "All models are wrong. But some are useful." Validity has only to do with usefulness and usefulness has no objective metric; only a relativistic one. What seems useless to you and me might be the core of reality to another people.
So Positivism makes sense to positivists because non-empirical sources of knowledge are "less true" than scientific ones by the metric of science itself. It's hard to see past that ideology when one is immersed in it. But if you eliminate that metric (not arbitrarily but because one accepts that it's not an objective metric but rather a constructed one) then Positivism breaks down. Science isn't the ONLY path to knowledge.
Peace and Love and Empathy,
When you say there is no objective truth, are you implying there is no objective reality? Or that we can't know it?
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method