Validity Claims
From Geography
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Validity Claims are declarations of something to be true. Though, that might be what one assumes at first. A validity claim is actually more about the justification of a thought. If someone is convinced of something, he would try to place a validity claim on that, which means as much that he will try to justify his thoughts about this matter. But this is where it becomes problematic, because there needs to be some frame of reference. Because validity claims discuss truth or at least the acceptance of certain statements, this subject therefore is about as much as the constitution of social reality. There exist different interpretations of ways in which validity claims are constituted. The different interpretations correspond with the different perspectives on the construction of reality. | Validity Claims are declarations of something to be true. Though, that might be what one assumes at first. A validity claim is actually more about the justification of a thought. If someone is convinced of something, he would try to place a validity claim on that, which means as much that he will try to justify his thoughts about this matter. But this is where it becomes problematic, because there needs to be some frame of reference. Because validity claims discuss truth or at least the acceptance of certain statements, this subject therefore is about as much as the constitution of social reality. There exist different interpretations of ways in which validity claims are constituted. The different interpretations correspond with the different perspectives on the construction of reality. | ||
| + | |||
| + | From an essentialistic perspective knowledge is build up within certain categories. Statements are seen as valid when they correspond with the already existing 'structures of meaning'. The existence of these structures, which are mainly to be divided between nature and culture, | ||
| + | |||
| + | From a nonessentialistic perspective "the acceptance of knowledge as valid and the corresponding criteria of validity are both discursively achieved" (Zierhofer, 2002, p.1357). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Sources == | ||
| + | Zierhofer, W. (2002). ''Speech acts and space(s): language pragmatics and the discursive constitution of the social.'' in Environment and Planning A, volume 34. | ||
Revision as of 15:46, 17 October 2010
Validity Claims are declarations of something to be true. Though, that might be what one assumes at first. A validity claim is actually more about the justification of a thought. If someone is convinced of something, he would try to place a validity claim on that, which means as much that he will try to justify his thoughts about this matter. But this is where it becomes problematic, because there needs to be some frame of reference. Because validity claims discuss truth or at least the acceptance of certain statements, this subject therefore is about as much as the constitution of social reality. There exist different interpretations of ways in which validity claims are constituted. The different interpretations correspond with the different perspectives on the construction of reality.
From an essentialistic perspective knowledge is build up within certain categories. Statements are seen as valid when they correspond with the already existing 'structures of meaning'. The existence of these structures, which are mainly to be divided between nature and culture,
From a nonessentialistic perspective "the acceptance of knowledge as valid and the corresponding criteria of validity are both discursively achieved" (Zierhofer, 2002, p.1357).
Sources
Zierhofer, W. (2002). Speech acts and space(s): language pragmatics and the discursive constitution of the social. in Environment and Planning A, volume 34.
