Abstract

Starting from fundamental acknowledgment of Go's core argument that scientific pluralism permits multiple objectivities, my comment first includes a complementary argument: to complement Go's standpoint approach, I suggest not an analytical but a practical strategy towards alternative approaches in sociology. Second, I put forth a few minor criticisms. And third, I formulate two more fundamental questions that go beyond Go's text: in international scholarly debate, what criteria do we have at hand to differentiate between knowledges and to dismiss those we consider false? Furthermore, what is the relationship between different standpoints and different theories?