As a fallacy, it seems to be an assumption that you don't state that makes many of your accounts seem so striaghtforward and sensible. You commit the fallacy that between positive and physical sciences and the social sciences there is a theoretic or paradigmatic continuum. HIS refutation of this continuity came even from the positive tradition, so it has much more weight as a refutation than it would have had coming from a Neitsche, Heidegger, or a Weber. I'm talking about the semiotics of our experience and the role it plays in social and cultural inquiry. But, then again, that just what the Vienna Circle HAD indeed postulated and, indeed, what Goedel refuted in 1931-33.
All science is teleological, having to do with evolution and progress.
The Email You Want.