re: Introduction

Harry Oxley (
Wed, 11 Oct 1995 10:33:37 +1000

>So the constructivist position would be that we must remain open to the
>possibility that positivism may be "functional", but we can never know for
>sure--except that if positivism is functional we could know for sure.
>The following statement is true: the preceding statement is false?
>There is something about this that reminds me vaguely of Godel's theorem
>(which I don't claim to understand well enough to say more about).
>Tim Connor <>

I wouldn't have thought we needed anything so fancy as Godel's
theorem; it seems just like liberals giving full proselytising rights to
fascists to prove they're liberal and allied paradoxes. Those who wear the
white hats always have to give all possible advantages to them as wear
black ones. I don't know why, but it seems the rule.
What puzzles me the tiniest bit about this debate over awareness of
how one's approach might be totally wrong is what the heck is the big
deal. I'd always thought this awareness came automatically with the
territory of ANY scholarly or 'scientific' endeavour at all - at least
except when actually engaged in presenting reports to clients in
commissioned consultant-research.
Harry Oxley
Harry Oxley