ABSTRACT
Arguments against scientism of some form or another shadow the history of the philosophy of social science. Typically such arguments link highly theoretical, indeed meta-theoretical considerations, to practical consequences of a politically and morally odious or salutary nature. They are methodological arguments with a moral-political sub-text. Sometimes, however, such arguments carry an additional sub-text of another type. When the positions criticised are only abstractly characterised and attributed in the main to long dead theorists it is natural to ask who is really meant to be refuted. When over time certain key-phrases lose the resonance that would have helped contemporary readers to identify the addressee of the critique, that sub-text is easily lost. Without the proper contextual understanding of the argument, however, it can become difficult to judge its actual successes and failures.
