Tanner A.

Bexson
ID: 001171315
LBED 4850N
Dr. Richard Delisle
November 28th, 2013

Analysis of the Intellectual Movements:

Positivism, Post-Positivism and
Post-Modernism

Across the continuum of time humanity has been one of the few species to thrive and
survive at an appreciable scale (as far as we can tell in our own little corner of the universe). In
retrospect, there are many things that helped us achieve this: opposable thumbs, bipedalism, and
even our heightened senses which, granted, can sometimes pale in comparison to other species.
Regardless, all of these evolutionary beneficial traits fail to compete with our ability to acquire and
apply knowledge. Facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the
theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, as Oxford Dictionary puts it. It is this one thing
that has changed the course of our species and it is this, oddly enough, that humanity cannot even
agree on. Our views on acquiring this aforementioned knowledge have never reached consensus
by humans and are consistently manipulated by our very action to try and understand it.
Fortunately, we can distinguish these views of knowledge acquisition into 3 main categories:
positivism, post-positivism and post-modernism*, and it is these 3 intellectual movements that
will be discussed in the following pages at great extent.
Firstly, positivism, the colloquially over-excited child of the 3, believes that knowledge
can be acquired easily by means of science and therefore, by means of observation, rational and
critical thinking and above all else a substantial disposition against anything else really. Positivism
does not concern itself with meta-physics nor does it concern itself with so-called revealed truths
or untestable, wild claims about powers and deities above its ability to comprehend. Positivism is
simple and non-authoritative; it is empirical, it is logical and it puts science on a pedestal as a
means for acquiring knowledge about the world (or universe). On the other hand, post-positivism
believes that science is much harder than this. While it still believes science is the best means for
acquiring knowledge, post-positivism believes that eventually knowledge becomes so difficult to
obtain that science alone cannot acquire it. Post-positivists believe that we need to tweak science

*Post-modernism is not really a means of knowledge acquisition per se; however, it plays a very important role in
knowledge acquisition as it is and this will be discussed in more detail later on.

and operate under different conditions in order for science to progress our acquisition of
knowledge. Post-positivism also agrees on the interaction between scientists, in similar or
contrasting fields, to help understand new bouts of knowledge and subsequently, agrees on the
scientific community. Finally, post-modernism takes a rather contrasting approach to positivism
and post-positivism in that it really doesnt believe science can help build our knowledge of the
world. It takes the sociological elements of post-positivism and uses this as its foundation to say
that in essence, humanity cannot use science to acquire knowledge of the world when the world
behaves independently of us and science is a man-made process. This particular movement does
not really contend with the previous two as it does not really have an alternative to science for
knowledge acquisition; yet, there is more to post-modernism than simply avoiding knowledge
acquisition which will be seen in following pages. These 3 intellectual movements continually and
consistently conflict with each other. Not one of them agrees on the other aside from perhaps
positivists and post-positivists agreeing on science as the main knowledge builder. Nevertheless,
the 3 movements are all very different and very unique in many ways; however what is fascinating
about them is their tendency to perpetually evolve from one another. These movements
independent evolution is infinitely circular and all propagate themselves from the other, which is
really quite amazing given their complete and utter differences in some cases. This will be
discussed well once all 3 movements are understood in more detail but for now it is good to
understand that essentially these 3 movements cannot exist without the other and they are all
related unconditionally.
Undoubtedly, we live in a scientifically oriented world. A world revolved around what we
can explain about nature and how we can use this to better our own human lives. Positivists are
definite embracers of this notion and operate under the conditions that science is, in laymans

terms, awesome. Positivism concerns itself with facts and rationality. It concerns itself with
observation and what it can explain logically through experimentation. More importantly,
positivism gives rise to science as a viable means of gaining and building human knowledge.
However, the first thing I wish to discuss about positivism is its tendency to reject metaphysics and
the supernatural. Before positivism and science and any associated concepts related to these,
society had no means of acquiring genuine knowledge about the universe. By default then, much
of humanity put their time, effort and beliefs into trying to understand religion, metaphysics, the
supernatural and all-powerful deities thinking this would guide them to an epistemological
salvation. Essentially, positivism marks the end of this era for humanity. As Hooykaas suggests in
his work A Traditional Narrative for the Scientific Revolution, positivism (and modern science)
is the movement that decided to quit taking revealed truths suggested by biblical knowledge. It is
the movement that decides to end the teaching of Plato, Aristotle and the Church as the primary
means of knowledge building and introduces science as the main one. This rather incredulous leap
forward for humans is quite a remarkable moment in history as it means we can begin to build a
system in which humanity can finally see nature for how it truly works. Moreover, positivism is
the first movement to incorporate a means of unraveling the mystery of nature and this will, by
definition, give rise to many techniques that positivism makes use of to finally gain true scientific
knowledge. These techniques: Empiricism, rationalism and induction, all play central roles in the
creation of positivistic science and also in the way science is enacted. As Francis Bacon describes
it in The New Organon, we have a new methodology of science by looking at the behavior of the
world and saying something about it, more specifically, creating a theory about it. This is what we
call induction and induction relies heavily on empirical facts derived from steady observation. So
what we have here so far is an inductive and empirical approach to scientific knowledge. This is

quite important as it opens the door for all of humanity to play a part in science and knowledge
building. Bringing back Hooykaas, in the emancipation of the Burgher class, humanity begins to
let everyone, regardless of social class, education or trade, to participate in scientific knowledge
building since observation, experience and empiricism was now all considered viable in the eyes
of science. Additionally, most of the time, these people (such as sailors and engineers) who were
initially thought to be uneducated now contributed a significant amount to this new science.
Finally, another characteristic of positivism and the new science, also suggested by Francis Bacon
but also by many others, is that of rationalism: The idea that everything in nature can be rationally
explained and accounted for, more often than not, using mathematics. So here we have it,
positivism: A rational, empirical and logical system of gaining knowledge through scientific
observation and induction. Undoubtedly, it is this that made humanitys initial jump forward into
the world of knowledge and their trek to unravel the mystery of nature. Perhaps one of the most
significant people to embody this intellectual movement is Sir Isaac Newton himself. Using
empirical, rational thinking and scientific induction, Newton was able to create a model (or
universal law) for gravitation, calculus, significant advances in the field of optics and many other
mathematical explanations of nature. According to Isaac Kramnick in The Portable
Enlightenment Reader, we see that Newton not only made these significant advances in his own
field, but also sparked this same attitude towards knowledge acquisition in many of the social
sciences and other sciences as well. Positivism was an intellectual movement that made humanity
drunk with excitement and a belief that humans could conquer the mysteries of everything using
these same techniques. In many ways this was irrefutably helpful to the development of mankind.
Yet, as we just said, humanity was OVER-excited and this led to positivisms inevitably needed
evolution.

If one thing is certain about the theory of evolution it is that one of the most important traits
that promotes evolution is adaptability. Just as with evolution, positivism finds itself in need of
adaptation once science reaches a phase where an empirical and inductive approach no longer
suffices. In essence, science eventually reaches a point where the things we want to understand are
too small or too complicated to let simple empiricism and rationalism pave the way to knowledge.
For example, atomic physics is essentially an unobservable science and hence, renders empiricism
useless. Quantum mechanics makes use of complex analysis to explain its phenomenon and
therefore makes typical mathematical rationalism impossible. Thus, the product of positivisms
evolution gives rise to post-positivism: The second intellectual movement that provides a method
for acquiring knowledge via the scientific method. The most important attribute to this movement
it would seem, is the intricate structure that science is given. Such a structure is envisioned in
Thomas Kuhns book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn makes it apparent that
through the history of modern science, science becomes so difficult and convoluted that the degree
of agreement that scientists come to starts to vary considerably. Following this trend, two
important things emerge in science: The scientific community and the paradigm. The former of
these concepts being straightforward enough: A scientific community is simply a diverse group of
interacting scientists in a particular field. The latter concept is introduced by many other
philosophers of science aside from Kuhn, such as Lakatos idea of research programs and
Laudans theory of research traditions. For the purposes of this essay however, we will consider
only Kuhns paradigms as all of these theories relate to each other quite closely. These paradigms
that Kuhn mentions then, essentially, are agreements between scientific communities on the way
they will approach new empirical findings. In other words, scientists will devise theories and then
decide how new empirical findings will fit into these devised theories. This opens up a lot of new

avenues for science, particularly the notion that scientists within scientific communities can
disagree and debate on the validity of empirical facts and on the relevance of them. Also, it gives
rise to Thomas Kuhns structure of scientific revolutions (as seen in Figure 1.) which gives us a
way to approach science systematically.

Pre-science -> Normal Science* -> Crisis -> Revolution -> New Normal Science*
Figure 1.
This structure paves a way for science that includes ways for scientists to operate initially
and then change their operations once a crisis and revolution occurs. In a frank sense, Kuhns
design is really quite elegant and intelligent. Yet, unfortunate though it may be, this approach also
closes many doors given the notion that now empirical findings that do not fit within these
paradigms, while they may possess scientific potential, will simply be discarded. Henceforth,
while this post-positivist approach to science is perfectly alright and even quite useful in
knowledge acquisition when knowledge isnt particularly easy to acquire, it opens the door for
many issues in knowledge-building through science. This gives rise to subjective and sociological
effects within science itself and humanity, in a sense, gets in the way of itself while it is trying to
solve the mysteries of nature. Ergo, it is this that opens the door for a sobering realization for
humanity in light of knowledge acquisition.
Doomsayers are not typically meant to be taken literally. It seems this doctrine does not
offer any flex for the following. Perhaps, one of the most extrinsic of the 3 intellectual movements,
post-modernism is more of an antithesis to the first 2 movements; it criticizes them but it does not
offer any alternatives to knowledge building. However, it does offer great insight towards the first
2 movements and human knowledge building in general. First, post-modernism realizes the
*To clarify, normal science would be this new paradigm oriented scientific method under a given paradigm. New normal science
would be the science operating under a new paradigm once an old paradigm has been discarded through the Crisis stage and a new
one put in place by the Revolution stage.

irrefutable and intrinsic sociological aspect in science and when viewing case studies of scientific
research, it is quite apparent the hindrances this presents. For example, the discrepancy between
the experimentalist and the theorist in T.J. Pinchs Theoreticians and the Production of
Experimental Anomaly: The Case of Solar Neutrinos, we see that it is indeed sociology that gets
in the way of true scientific knowledge building as well. It is introduced that prestige, power,
greed, financial interest, general interest, credibility and reputation (all qualities characteristic of
human nature) all play a role in whether or not science will advance in a particular way or not,
regardless of the validity or interest of science itself. Furthermore, this escalates even more direly
when humans begin to let this sociological aspect get to their heads. Humans are innately prone to
their own nature which includes good qualities as well as bad, and science can act as a catalyst for
these bad qualities given the right circumstances. As we see with Michel Foucault in The Great
Confinement, humans use the general hospital, something that should be used to convert
scientific knowledge into usable healing techniques, not strictly for healing purposes but for
confinement of the ill and or, rather, an administrative entity. It is an exertion of power that
scientists use to impose science on others, not for its usefulness, but for its own selfish reasons.
Even more generally, when we look at building the atomic bomb or the discovery and usage of
radiation, humanity is always influenced, even scientifically, by sociological aspects such as
power-exertion, financial influence and prestige. Intrinsically, humans are still prone to their
innate nature and when given science as a tool, can create things and manipulate nature to reach
devastating consequences simply by the influence of themselves. It is indeed a frightening concept
and it is this that the post-modernists argue in their excursion against scientific knowledge.
Nevertheless, as weve seen so far, post-modernism would most definitely say science is not the
ideal way to approach knowledge acquisition. It is riddled with flaws and ways to backfire on

humanity simply because it is humanity who built it. Having said this, it seems that this is as far as
post-modernism goes. It offers no alternatives to it and seems to be quite satisfied with this.
Inevitably though, it does offer perspective to the intense repercussions of science. Undoubtedly,
science is a human construct and it comes with inherent human flaws which we must be aware of
to properly enact science as a means of knowledge acquisition.
Having looked at and analyzed all 3 of these intellectual movements of knowledge
building, we can now try to understand the importance of the relation between them. Positivism
being an empirical, rational and inductive approach to science, post-positivism being the
theory-dependent, paradigm-oriented and sociological approach to science and post-modernism
being the herald of all things flawed within scientific knowledge. The final thing that will be
discussed in this paper is the evolution of all 3 movements into each other and how science evolves
from this infinite circularity. Looking at positivism, the overly enthusiastic of the 3 movements,
claiming science an easy knowledge builder and strictly empirical and rational. This doctrine
inevitably fails once we reach what Ill call difficult science: Science that simply cannot be
explained empirically or rationally (at first, in any case). This will give rise to positivisms
evolution into post-positivism: The movement situated on a more sociological approach to
science, focusing on theory-dependence and paradigms within a scientific community. This
movement takes a more systematic approach to science as it has rules with which to abide by in
terms of what counts as scientific knowledge, what does not and how we will go about finding it.
The sociological aspect here however, gives rise to a supposed inherent flaw within science and
leads post-positivism into its evolution into post-modernism, the movement that brings us
awareness of sciences human qualities. As post-positivism allowed sociology into sciences
practices, this opened the door for post-modernism to show us the evil brought about by this and

science in general. We see many documented cases of science being misused and abused by
humanity and their innate need for power, security, finances and greed. Post-modernism shows us
that we must use caution while using science as knowledge acquisition since it poses many threats
and still cannot protect us from ourselves. It seems though that post-modernism ends here, and
without any alternative to science, it inescapably turns back to positivism. With this revival of
positivism however, we must be aware of the perspective we have gained. As Alan Chalmers
explains in his book What is this thing called Science? positivism is revived with the newfound
doctrine that while we can still generate a theory and look for empirical facts to support this as in
post-positivism, we can still look at the world empirically and inductively and generate our
theories of nature this way. Essentially, the new positivism is a two-way street between facts and
theories while the old positivism was a one way street from facts to theories. Coming full circle,
we now see how this all relates to scientific knowledge building. Between these 3 intellectual
movements, we can see that knowledge acquisition cannot thrive without science and the
intertwining and perpetually evolving positivism, post-positivism and post-modernism. Moreover,
we can see that the trichotomy between these movements and their stance on science allows our
body of scientific knowledge to flourish as time progresses. As seen in Figure 2., I portray science
as the centerpiece of these movements, protected by these movements as time progresses and in
turn, growing as a function of time.

Post-positivism

Post-positivism

Scientific
Knowledge

Scientific Knowledge
Positivism

Post-modernism
Time

Figure 2.

Positivism

Post-modernism

I would argue that this is the only way we can view our epistemological body of scientific
knowledge. This is the only way science can grow while remaining secure within humanity and
society. It needs the excitement and empirical method of positivism (for progression and human
interest) as much as it needs the scientific community and paradigms of post-positivism (for
progression and analysis of difficult science) as much as it needs the awareness of the dangers of
science in the hands of humanity (for protection). Remove any one of these philosophical
epistemologies and scientific knowledge building will fail or remain stagnant at best. This is the
methodology of science; this is how humans acquire knowledge; this is how humans remain at the
evolutionary peak of nature.
In conclusion, there is no argument against the notion that knowledge building is a
complex and adverse process. Granted, science has its inherent flaws as a social construct for
knowledge acquisition; it is all we currently have and probably all we will ever have. As seen in
the preceding pages, science and scientific knowledge grows over time through the overlapping
yet perpetually evolving and dependent intellectual movements: Positivism, post-positivism and
post-modernism. It is an exciting yet difficult route; however, it seems like a balanced system has
been found and humanity should rejoice in what is yet to come from science as a knowledge
builder.

Works Cited*
Chalmers, Alan. What is this thing called Science? 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1999. Print
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1996. Print.

*Unable to cite photocopied works. Hoping this is okay!