session 19 positivism as number crunching or an investigative discipline.

Richard.K.Ashley in his mater piece discusses about a lot of things but the heading of positivism is something which is worth reading.  He has tried to explain what positivism is, what its expectations are, how it is hindered now a days, and what is the possible solution of it.

Positivism in its more general term is referred as received model of natural science. Many political scientists, philosophers perceive it as number crunching, brute empiricist and inductive logic. One can also take help from Michael Foucault in distinguishing the eschatological and positivist discourse. The objective truth in eschatological discourse lies in the discourse itself whereas truth in positivist discourse lies in external object.

For positivism to hold true, there are 4 expectations that should be adhered.  Firstly, the fact that scientific knowledge tries to grasp reality I accord with some fixed structural and causal relationship which should be Independent of human subjectivity. Secondly, science seeks to formulate technically useful knowledge which can be used to make predictions and do analysis by interpretation of hidden values. Thirdly, the knowledge should be value neutral. Fourthly, truth of claims and objects need to be tested by practical experience and interpretive tools.

The reason why they are hindered now a day is that with rising power of norms and disciplines, the 

idea of authors in theories cannot be 100% objective. The norms and disciplines negate the ability of analyst to analyses things properly without inculcating their own opinions. Since the system is that it is difficult to avoid our personal biases and norms of society in our propositions.

Richard goes on explaining the solutions of the problem dumb generality and proposes that there should solution lies in meta -theoretical methods. This means that a theory must substantiate its propositions within the theory itself.  There should be investigative tools in the theory that donot only make sense but they must prove the theory explicitly.

~UZAIR MUJEEB