E. Roy Weintraub said:  
> I respond that "science" is not unproblematic in this context,  
> "provides" is an act of human not community agency, and that "better" is  
> thus unanchored. Which is not to say that we cannot sometimes, maybe  
> many times, all  (who are we "all"?) or perhaps most of us agree that "X  
> is a better explanation for P than is Y." Perhaps those who "all" can so  
> agree form a particular community at least in part defined by that  
> shared agreement. But there is nothing especially compelling about that  
> X-P explanation for those who are not members of that community.  
  
  
  
I don't think there's a big distinction between the concept of  
"better" in professional science and "better" in everyday effective  
activity.  
  
I am lost and want to go to the petrol station. I ask person A: they  
tell me to lick my finger, stick it in the air, and see which side  
smells of petrol. I ask person B: they tell me to buy a map from a  
local shop.  
  
There is a fact of the matter about where the petrol station is, and  
universal objective criteria from which to judge the two theories  
about how to find it, no matter what "community" is doing the judging.  
Given the goal or aim as an exogenous variable, better can be derived  
from is.  
  
The incommensurability of theories in postmodernism is a consequence  
of denying the judgemental rationality inherent in everyday activity  
and in professional science, I think.  
  
Best,  
  
Ian Wright