There's so much abstration and crap in this piece that
I'm not going to even bother.
Published by who else. The Australian.

I whole-heartedly agree with Fritjers (Hi Paul) and Beatton that more rigorous questioning of taken-for-granted views, beliefs, presumptions and their logics would enhance the quality of debate in the social sciences and elsewhere. But I am not so sure whether this questioning would lead to more convergence or divergence.

As the responses show, it can be child’s-play to point out overlooked common-sense presumptions in any text (and it helps keep social scientists in business). Of course, what we choose to question at any one time can only ever be partial and invested in selected problems, so we are always open to accusations of bias. If we’re aiming for impartiality, the best we can do is cover off the obvious ones and hope no-one twigs to (or cares about) the others or, failing that, we don’t engage with people whom we know would object.

The thing is it’s unlikely we’re always going to agree on the 'correct' logic or standards for rigorous questioning. As you know, one person's rigour is often another's travesty – like the hot, tired debates over economic presumptions about human nature or the relative value of 'gold standard' quantitative versus 'rich' qualitative data in the social sciences. And that's not even getting into the philosophical quagmire on questions about 'truth'.

Pointing out logical inconsistencies in our universal assertions, as you do, is one method for scrutinising social or theoretical ‘givens’ but it is not the only one (Foucault or historians provide other examples). And I agree with those who argue that the ways we question are themselves necessarily founded in particular understandings of what ‘impartiality’ and ‘rigour’ can and ought to be. We just can’t get away from taking an a priori stand somewhere. Which is not to say that engagement is unproductive across all these barricades, far from it. It’s just that we might be less confused when we can’t get everyone, finally, to agree with us.