[quoting Tripp, 23 Oct 96.b] Positivism simply says that theories should explain (be based on) the results of experiments. We can never know if the results of experiments 'correspond' to reality, but most of us act as if they do. Einstein was a realist, by the way. He believed that the results of experiments corresponded to reality. I am officially more skeptical than that.
I would appreciate more clarification of your position. I think two important questions that we must deal with in considering our philosophy of science are:
1. What is the relationship between scientific theory and objective reality?
2. Does science possess special methods for evaluating competing theories?
Here is how I think different types of researchers would answer these two questions:
Realists would answer:
1. Objective reality exists and science approximates it.
2. The value of different theories can be judged based upon their correspondence with reality.
Instrumentalists would answer:
1. Reality is the reading on our instruments and measures. Other questions don't matter.
2. Of course science is special--ust look around at all the advances derived from science.
Relativists (a la Kuhn) would answer:
1. Reality is what a particular community says it is.
2. There is no basis for judging one theory as better than another.
Constructivists would answer:
1. Reality is what I have constructed, and no one else can ever completely know my reality.
2. The only thing we can do as researchers is describe our own reality and share our interpretations of the realities constructed by others.
Postmodernists would answer:
1. Reality is defined by the dominate culture in ways that disenfranchise minority cultures.
2. Each community (culture, sex, class, etc.) has a right to define reality as it pleases and the goal of research is to expose the hegemony of the dominant culture.
I can't really place myself in any of these camps. However, with respect to educational research, I would say:
1. Reality is subject to multiple interpretations, and different methods of inquiry lead to different interpretations.
2. Educational research, as currently practiced, has little relevance to the reality experienced by learners and instructors anywhere in education and training. It's primary purpose is to preserve the status of the elite academics engaged in conducting it.
What are your answers to these questions, Steve?