This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Khascall.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Post-behavioralism forwards to this article, despite these topics being different. I'm not an expert in either topics, so does anyone else have an opinion on whether they should be split? -- Vince | Talk| 17:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I think Arne Næss' has done a great job that might be relevant for the 2nd point. I don't have access to it but "Pluralist and Possibilist Aspect of the Scientific Enterprise" suggests solutions to the positivist-issues. Anyone more familiar than me that can help out? This method is in wide usage in Norway, but may be confused for relativism. -- Benjaminbruheim ( talk) 02:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is virtually incoherent. I'll just outline some basic problems:
71.109.227.238 ( talk) 17:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the statement that postpositivism claims that no single shared reality exists is wrong.
Here [1] and here [2] it is stated otherwise.
-- O.mangold ( talk) 16:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It's odd to set Popper next to the idea that "conjectures are justified by a set of warrants", which as the linked article theory of justification says, he would strongly disagree with. This article makes it sound as is justificationism is a core and essential part of critiquing positivism, which is just weird. 213.122.65.96 ( talk) 09:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Ontological Realism is a part of Popper's Theory, but not a part of logical positivism, which rejects ontological realism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.221.153.169 ( talk) 15:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
This is what I came here to say. Positivism, beyond a shadow of a doubt up until Post-Positivism, was not a realist position. Some post-positivists subscribe to a form of critical realism. But the idea that positivism generally is realist is a common misconception and is absolutely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.44.39 ( talk) 15:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
All, this is an FYI that I've been sandboxing some changes to this page and will be weaving them in over the next week or so. I'm a PhD student in Communication at University of Washington, and my the sources reflect that. It's my intention to proceed piecewise and transparently with a modest facelift and expansion. Some comments from this talk page are incorporated in the changes -- or at least informed the direction I took.
If you're interested, the full scope of the changes I'll be making is in my sandbox here: /info/en/?search=User:Khascall/sandbox
Question for consideration: once this set of changes gets worked into the article, perhaps the citations warning can be removed?
Khascall ( talk) 08:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Khascall.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Post-behavioralism forwards to this article, despite these topics being different. I'm not an expert in either topics, so does anyone else have an opinion on whether they should be split? -- Vince | Talk| 17:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I think Arne Næss' has done a great job that might be relevant for the 2nd point. I don't have access to it but "Pluralist and Possibilist Aspect of the Scientific Enterprise" suggests solutions to the positivist-issues. Anyone more familiar than me that can help out? This method is in wide usage in Norway, but may be confused for relativism. -- Benjaminbruheim ( talk) 02:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is virtually incoherent. I'll just outline some basic problems:
71.109.227.238 ( talk) 17:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the statement that postpositivism claims that no single shared reality exists is wrong.
Here [1] and here [2] it is stated otherwise.
-- O.mangold ( talk) 16:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It's odd to set Popper next to the idea that "conjectures are justified by a set of warrants", which as the linked article theory of justification says, he would strongly disagree with. This article makes it sound as is justificationism is a core and essential part of critiquing positivism, which is just weird. 213.122.65.96 ( talk) 09:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Ontological Realism is a part of Popper's Theory, but not a part of logical positivism, which rejects ontological realism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.221.153.169 ( talk) 15:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
This is what I came here to say. Positivism, beyond a shadow of a doubt up until Post-Positivism, was not a realist position. Some post-positivists subscribe to a form of critical realism. But the idea that positivism generally is realist is a common misconception and is absolutely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.44.39 ( talk) 15:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
All, this is an FYI that I've been sandboxing some changes to this page and will be weaving them in over the next week or so. I'm a PhD student in Communication at University of Washington, and my the sources reflect that. It's my intention to proceed piecewise and transparently with a modest facelift and expansion. Some comments from this talk page are incorporated in the changes -- or at least informed the direction I took.
If you're interested, the full scope of the changes I'll be making is in my sandbox here: /info/en/?search=User:Khascall/sandbox
Question for consideration: once this set of changes gets worked into the article, perhaps the citations warning can be removed?
Khascall ( talk) 08:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)