1

William Molnar

Given Sayer’s comments in Chapter 2, it is clear that he rejects the view that we each construct our own
world, or that what is true for you may not be true for me. What do you think? Do you accept Sayer’s
reasoning? What are the implications of each view for science?

Sayer (1992) states that “science was seen as the steady accretion of objective knowledge through the

unproblematic medium of observation or experience” (p 45). I think that the view that a scientist

experiences based on this quotation is not based on observation or experience, but on some pre-

determined expectation of what is to be viewed. Sayer also says that “The contrast of fact and theory is

being invoked here as if it were indisputable” (p 45). I believe that Sayer is stating that there IS a conrast

between fact and theory but is being brought on by a higher power and treated as though it can’t be

disputed when in reality, it can. In his section on sense and reference and the conceptual and the

empirical, Sayer argues the distinction between a reference and its sense. He states that “these ‘sense-

relations’ may be of different types. It then appears reasonable to say that the sense-relations represent

the contribution of language, as if this were separable from the act of reference, and conversely as if the

latter were possible independently of language, by simple pointing at the object. This separation then

resonates with the separation of observation from interpretation” (p 57). I believe that this statement

supports the theory that Sayer rejects the view that we construct our own world.

In his discussion on concept and schemata, Sayer states that “Good artists can use the most

highly developed, richly differentiated schemata so skillfully that they enable us to see things in a new

way. The equivalent is true for the use of concepts in science and everyday practice” (p 59). Again, Sayer

is showing us that what is true for you may not be true for me. What this artist is doing may paint a picture

of something that you will see that is different from what I see. The not true for you but true for me

statement. Sayer says that “statements have to be intersubjectively negotiated, in order first to be

established as intelligible and second as true or false” ( p 65). Here is an opportunity for one to determine

what is true or not true. Again the opportunity to construct our world of what is true for you may not be true

for me theory.

This brings up the issue of the gestalt switch. Sayer argues that scientists cannot change

paradigms. As an example, to switch from seeing a duck to a rabbit within the picture, the person must

already know what each looks like (p 74). “The usual interpretation of the gestalt switch overlooks this and

therefore underestimates the continuites spanning so-called scientific revolution (p 74). I may see a duck
 2
William Molnar

and you may see a rabbit. I Believe this shows the theory of what is true for you but not for me statement.

Finally, Sayer says that “ It can sometimes be enlightening to look at an old subject in a

completely different way, borrowing concepts from other theories. This may improve the existing system

“ (p 77). This existing system would hold to Sayer’s comments tha he rejects the view that each construct

our own world. We may be looking at an old subject in a different way, but it is still the same subject no

matter which way you look at it. Since it would be impossible for people to look at an old subject

differently and will have a different perception of it, the decision of what is true for you and not true for me

will be decided based on the perception. Each time this is viewed, a new answer or perception will be

seen. No one person will have a clear and exact answer. It all depends on interpretation. This brings up

the issue of the gestalt switch. Sayer argues that scientists cannot change paradigms. I believe that after

reading and reviewing chapter 2 of Sayer’s book, I would have to agree with Sayer’s theory especially the

statement of what is true for you may not be true for me. I can relate this to my employment. Each teacher

that works within my school views the child differently. I feel that because I am extremely educated (3

Master’s degrees and almost half through my PhD) and have 20 years experience with inner city and

troubled children, I view them in a different way then say a teacher who has less experience and only a

bachelor’s degree. I can see and understand things that other teachers can’t. I believe that I was sent into

the inner-school for a purpose. That is whay I would have to say that we don’t construct our world, it is

already constructed for us.

ayer (1992) states that some people believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is

“’just a theory’ and ‘not fact’” (p. 45). I think the argument of what came first, the

chicken or the egg is another theory open for discussion. To answer the question, I

accept Sayer’s theory. We don’t construct our own world, it constructed us.

Everything happens for a reason is a phrase we often hear. What may be true for

me is not always true for you.

Sayer (1992) states that “any conclusions on this matter depend on how we
 3
William Molnar

understand theory and perception and the relationship between knowledge and its

object” (p. 83). In order to evaluate each view for science we need to evaluate the

theory in terms of “fact or reality, practice, and common sense” (Sayer, 1992, p.

49). We would also need to evaluate the theory in terms of “idealized or

hypothetical vs. actual, speculative vs. certain, opinion, value, and belief vs. fact,

and subjective vs. objective” (Sayer, 1992, p. 49). Since we don’t have the exact

answers perception plays a major role in the decision process. In the end many

times there is debate on the hypothesis or conclusion. We come as close as we can

to fact in the conclusion.