Re: functional positivism?
Thu, 12 Oct 1995 20:53:17 -0500 (CDT)

AJ sez: >
>I wholeheartedly agree with you, but in doing so, acknowledge that
>aas a constructivist, I must suffer the consequences of allowing for
>others' constructions to be valid to them (in as far as they don't
>gotta change it if they don't wanna). This is essentially the
>argument against constructivism and post modernism in general by
>empiricists whoo point to the revisionist historians, bigots and
>racists who claim that events like the Holocaust didn't really happen.
>I know it didn't, YOU know it didn't, but THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT
This is the point, IMHO, that we have to take a narrative stance on events
which were experienced by a number of construing individuals. We gotta ask, is
there a story which is more coherent than other stories which could be told?
You and I could stand outside with a bunch of other people getting wet from
something coming down from the sky. Say, we call it "rain" and the others call
it something else. It really doesn't matter how many of them there are, if
"rain" is the most coherent story about what is going on. The big problem to
me is trying to deal with our issues in positivistic terms. At some point, we
have to be able to make a clean break and redefine "truth value" in our terms.

Suzanne Huffman