Logical positivism has long had its day, at least in philosophy. The issue of value-free science is not the same as the logical positivists' rejection of normativity, it concerns rather scientists' unwillingness to take moral responsibility for applications of their research, leaving that up to politicians 😖. It's not obvious that destructive outcomes in that context can be imputed to logical positivism, as such. Accepting the logical positivists' analysis of ethics did not prevent many of them or their sympathizers from salutary involvement in public affairs, they just had a peculiar view of what most people would regard as normative engagement actually amounted to. Alas, the future will probably reveal extremely intolerant and intransigent absolutist norms seeking to overcome tolerant cosmopolitan norms.

I'm not sure I agree with the claim in your text or maybe I just don't understand it properly. Could you please explain, with a particular example or two, what you mean by the "norm of positive perspective" and how it has been destructive?

I believe Jasmin is talking about logical positivism and how it has marginalized its 'others'. I recommend the following two papers:

Zaman, A. (2013) 'Logical positivism and Islamic economics', International Journal of Economics, Management and Accounting 21(2): 1-18.

Ul-Haq, S. and Westwood, R. I. (2012) 'The politics of knowledge, epistemological occlusion and Islamic management and organization knowledge', Organization 19(2): 229-257.

Logical positivism has long had its day, at least in philosophy. The issue of value-free science is not the same as the logical positivists' rejection of normativity, it concerns rather scientists' unwillingness to take moral responsibility for applications of their research, leaving that up to politicians 😖. It's not obvious that destructive outcomes in that context can be imputed to logical positivism, as such. Accepting the logical positivists' analysis of ethics did not prevent many of them or their sympathizers from salutary involvement in public affairs, they just had a peculiar view of what most people would regard as normative engagement actually amounted to. Alas, the future will probably reveal extremely intolerant and intransigent absolutist norms seeking to overcome tolerant cosmopolitan norms.

i can see that you have understood my question properly. Logical positivism is what i refer to but usually for any discipline there would be the dichotomy of positive and normative where the positive becomes the norm or central focus while the normative is marginalised. Hence, should that continue despite that a revival of the normative started decades ago but in some societies it never ceased to be of most significance. In economics there is always a tendency, even today, to cherish the positive view while normative remain insignificant. Mainstream practice reflects lacking preference for normative applications while the positive are indicators that guide policy actions and often remain as such guidelines that as you mentioned Karl Pfeifer were and are left to politicians. Obviously then there is a misunderstanding of positivistic conclusions as guidelines. These deprive proper role of the normative.

Thank you Shoaib Ul-Haq but i want to ask you what in particular you recommend in the papers listed if you may shortly say few points as a summary. I appreciate it.

I've often heard people say things like, "That's not a moral issue, that's an economic issue". To me that's always sounded confused. What such people are implying is, that we ought to base the decision on economic principles, or that it is better to base the decision on economic principles, which to me sounds like a moral decision or a normative stance after all. What I think is going on underneath is some sort of view of morality being limited to some set of fixed rules, whereas in reality such rules are just rules of thumb that can be overridden in various circumstances. Morality at its most general level may converge with economic principles as expressed by a utilitarian calculus -- theoretically, anyway. The problem is that too many things of value are often left out of consideration in actual classical or typical cost-benefit analyses. It's not so much a positivistic lack of normativity as a narrowly conceived set of values.

What may be the solution to such narrow conceived set of values? How can we expand the value set in practice if that is the issue that creates an impression of lack of normativity in positivism?

Jasmin Omercic I think part of the solution is to stop creating cohorts of scientists and engineers that have had little exposure to and appreciation of the humanities and think that circumscribed scientific practicality is the only value. This is not a problem of LP, it's a problem due to bean-counters who regard STEM subjects and STEM research with monetizable impact as the overriding value. Including humanities in STEM curricula (not just lip-service tokenism) and encouraging real dialogue instead of rivalry between the "two cultures" would be a good start.

• https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/who-needs-the-humanities-engineers/article15276333/
• http://www.wiete.com.au/journals/GJEE/Publish/vol19no1/01-Donald-J.pdf
• https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-study-humanities-what-i-tell-engineering-freshmen/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures

I second Karl Pfeifer and I add a point that one of my economics teachers made: “Economic theory is purely descriptive.” All it can do (at best) is tell you what some of the implications of actions are. “If an economist tells you what you should do, s/he has stopped being an economist and has become a politician”.

Quote:

“I've often heard people say things like, "That's not a moral issue, that's an economic issue". To me that's always sounded confused. What such people are implying is, that we ought to base the decision on economic principles, or that it is better to base the decision on economic principles, which to me sounds like a moral decision or a normative stance after all.”

The work of those who occupy endless goods is worldly; they seek to make money and even stack up the stacks in their dreams..

I think we need both perspectives. Looking at the history of political science and political thought, it seems like normative works have been useful in guiding positivist research. I believe that political science should not be just to observe what politics is but to figure out how politics should best be conducted. By adhering to this belief, I would be compelled to incorporate normative perspectives in my research even if the research itself had a positivist foundation or drew from a literature of positivist sources.