The Mode Shop

By admin 　http://www.themodeshop.com/empirical-mode-decomposition/

Empirical Mode Decomposition

Three areas of the Modern episteme: Comte and Foucault

"Modern humans are not the ones who went to find himself, his secrets, hidden truth, he is a person who tries to find himself. This modernity does not 'liberate man in his own being': It forced him to face the task of producing itself ".

Baudelaire

In this paper efforts have been made to Foucault's criticism about the classification of linear branches of knowledge with Comte. This paper first begins with a summarization of Foucault from the three fields, empirical mathematics and philosophy and then moved to the classification of linear Comte, with special reference to have positivism. In the final analysis paper comparing both Comte and Foucault and the major criticisms of Comte by Foucault, with reference to other works of Foucault major.

Foucault episteme of modern projection:
Foucault's account of human knowledge based on a polemical statement, the man is the discovery last December. And one perhaps nearing the end of the company. Foucault says that man is subject and object as well as a doublet of transcendental knowledge, is a nineteenth century construction, with specific conditions of possibility. Human none on the 17th and 18th centuries and its place in the structure occupied by the representation. Grammar, wealth and natural history has a representational structure. Foucault says,

... Representations set the mode to be language, individuals, nature and needs of its own. Analysis of representation, therefore, have a value set for all the empirical domain. Classical system whole order, all major taxonomic that allows to know these things through the system of their identity, is not folded in a space that opened up in the representation when representing himself, and the same area where are located. Language is only a representation of the creature; needs only a representation of the needs (1966:209).

The 19th century saw knowledge of wealth, living beings and liberate themselves from the representation language. Knowledge in this area no longer remain united in the taxonomy table. Language, economy and living creatures began to be seen as an organic structure, which consists of function-based. Biology is no longer analyzed through tables taxonomy of living things based on surface structure, but explored shallow space between the organs and the hidden, linking both to the function they perform. Similarly, in the field of pure philology grammar appeared. Individuality of language and similarity other languages is determined by the interior and grammatical mechanisms. Foucault says,

... Language is no longer consist only of representational and sound which in turn representation and ordered them as a link through need, but consists of the formal elements are grouped into a system that sets up the sound, syllable and the roots of an organization that is not a representation (1966: 235)

Foucault does not say that the modern episteme eliminate representation as a function of thought, he actually said, representation still has an important place in the modern conception of signs (as well as language and knowledge). His point in just not more of a questionable, self-justifying point beginning, but not anymore acceptable only as a function identical with the mind itself. The power of representation to connect must be sought not "beyond representation, beyond the visibility directly, in a kind of behind the scenes world even deeper and more dense than representation.

Foucault sees the project as the main focus of Kant's critique of this view of representation. Kant allows some form of empirical knowledge-essentially representational. But he did not accept the classical assumption that all the representational nature of mind. His critics question the representation based on the legal limit. The whole system of representation for the classical age is necessary forms of thought and reality as it appears, to Kant's critical eye, just as a special form of thought and reality must be based on uncritical acceptance implies a system of representation is dogmatic metaphysics. Kant's work also opens the question of representation from all sources, (Gutting: 1989: 243).

One of the most important development of modern science is the fragmentation of knowledge. For the classical age, knowing all the homogeneous form, with the domain of each (from mathematics to philosophy of empirical science) is only a special form of general science of order. To find out in any domain to build the table ordered and differences. Foucault says,

In the classical period, the field of knowledge from the project with the theme representation analysis mathesis Universalist, is perfectly homogeneous: all knowledge, regardless of type, continue to the ordering of materials by forming the difference and defined the differences with the established order, this is true of mathematics, it is also true for the taxonomy (in broad sense) and for natural science, but it also applies to all types of estimates, not perfect, and most spontaneous knowledge which are brought into play in the construction of fragment Latest discourse or in the process of everyday exchanges, and it's true, finally to philosophical thought and for those long chains so that ideologues', no less than Descartes or Spinoza, think in different ways, trying to build a road to me to make sure from the very simplest and most obvious idea for the truth that most composites. But of the nineteenth century the field of epistemological become fragmented, or rather exploded in different directions. It is difficult to escape from the advantages of pre-linear classification and hierarchy in the way Comte; but to seek to harmonize all branches of modern knowledge on the basis of mathematics is to be subject to one point of view of objectivity in knowledge questions about the positive each branch of knowledge ... (1966: 346).

Epistemological field exploded in the 19th century in different directions (346), and can no longer be understood as a linear series questions using the same basic method in different domains. The modern episteme is not ordered according to the ideal perfect mathematization, also not revealed, o the basis of purity Formally, the sequence, the length down from an increasingly burdened with the knowledge empiricity (1966:346). Instead they appear three different dimensions of knowledge-

(1) Mathematical sciences, including pure mathematics and mathematical physics, who built a deductive system, linking propositions together clear or verifiable.
(2) empirical science, such as biology, economics, and philology, ethics relate to stop but the analog elements of the world experienced so that it can reveal causal relationships and structural constraints between them.
(3) Philosophical reflection, which seeks understanding and unity of the knowledge base o order of reality. That plane common to linguistic and economic biology.

Foucault saw This division in the field of knowledge as a result of decrease in representation. Split off from philosophy as a mode of different methodological investigation is a direct result of the fact that the representation no longer be denied thought and knowledge. The split between mathematics and empirical sciences as a consequence of the new distinction between analytic and synthetic knowledge, which with naturally flows from the question of representation.

Directly opposed to the linear growth model of progressive Comte, Foucault said that modern biology, economics and philology appropriate with a sharp break in the history of thought and not just an extension of the previous way of thinking-

Analysis of wealth in terms of moving labor outside the representational view pure wealth by Adam Smith, but the big breakthrough with the classical episteme in the analysis occur only with Ricardo, who presented the work not only as a measure of value but also the only source of value. Value is no longer a sign, he has become a project ... value increases with the amount of labor it ... but does not change with increase or decrease in wage employment, like all other commodities are exchanged (1966: 254). And with the conception of work, a new conception of humans as agents of the economy emerges, which Foucault calls, oeconomics gay.

Foucault says, both Ricardo and Marx saw economic life as a linear history to the human struggle to survive through her labor. Both history see as a move towards breaking point where humans will face the ultimate consequence of limitations. Ricardo saw the culmination of a dead end only makes permanent scarcity against which humans have been so long struggle, Marx on the other hand, see it as the end of scarcity and the beginning of a new form of human existence. These two linear thinking are two different ways to develop a basic picture economic reality, which was established in archaeological structure identical modern economy.

Foucault criticized Marxism and said that, at the deepest level of knowledge of Marxism in discontinuity is not introduced western bourgeoisie against the economic outlook, but this opposition is only a mere surface effects. As Foucault says, Marxism introduced no discontinuity real, but found its place without difficulty, as good management, adequate, comfortable and, you know, to satisfy the time (his own), in an epistemological setting gladly welcome (since this arrangement was in the room actually made for it) and that it, in return, not intended for distribution and, above all, there is no power to modify, even one iota, because the rest entirely on that. Marxism in the nineteenth century such as fish, I water: that is, unable to breathe in Elsewhere ... and then he said that the controversy-bourgeois Marxist like ... waves slightly and cause some ripples the surface, but they are nothing more than a storm in the swimming pool addling children (1966:262).

Similarly, Foucault said that Marxism is not so revolutionary as it is believed and did not bring any major rupture and break with classical episteme, but a mere surface effect, which continues to linear development of history.

Moving to modern biology began according to Foucault, by introducing the idea of structure Organic, by Lamark, but determining the break came only with Cuvier, the first to give an organic structure of the independent role of taxonomic classification. For Cuvier, the structure of the organ must understood in terms of functions that the organs do. In this way Cuvier, arrived at the definition of living beings as a functional system, where life becomes a category that defines the object of investigation biology, and modern biology to be, different from the classical natural history, science of life. Life rather than be bound temporality and historicity, which according to Foucault provided the basis for introduction of the idea of evolution by Darwin, that is foreign to classical thought.

I case of philology, and cracked a big break that separates the philology of common grammar comes with Bopp, who admitted the relationship of language verbal roots.

So we see here in the modern episteme, that with the fragmentation of knowledge and the reduction of representation, language loss central place in the classical episteme, and the language becomes only an object of knowledge among others. Foucault said that the formalization and interpretation of language that is rooted in the new state language as a historical reality and the object of our knowledge. Formalization and interpretation do not contradict each other, but have a common origin and destination, they have in common phenomenology and structuralism in the modern episteme. In modern literature, according to Foucault, returning the language to something like the status during the Renaissance. Where the language of renaissance finally controlled and limited by the text world and given a creative word 'god' as, modern language literature completely ungrounded with "no point of departure, without end, no promises ". So we see here that the language is to trace back the roots to the classical episteme, so that we can assume that it is both mutual and episteme resurrection modern form of modern languages.

We have discussed the three axes of modern knowledge-the mathematical, philosophical and empirical, but we have not found in the human sciences. Sciences human, of major concern to Foucault is exempt as because, as he said, Of the three areas of epidemiology of human sciences are not included at least in the sense that they can not be found along one dimension or on the surface of one of the aircraft so specified. But one can say that they included in it, because at the crack branches of knowledge, or, more precisely, the volume defined by their dimensions, that the human sciences have their place (1966:347).

Foucault views of modern philosophy, that philosophy from Kant onward have been handled with a 'human being' which are objects of human knowledge. Foucault says that humans are the product of episteme modern, and before the end of the eighteenth century humans do not exist (338) and that he would disappear wit the collapse of the modern episteme. The idea man here is a representation for them there. The emergence of humans in the modern episteme means that the subject of representational knowledge to be, as the object of knowledge. Foucault recognizes the empirical sciences as a locus of knowledge, but more further said that man can not only be the object of knowledge, but the subject which is the world and everything in it as an object. Foucault argued that the appropriate human studies as the subject is the center of attention is a reflection of modern philosophy and in other ways from the modern human sciences.

Kant gives the difference between man as a transcendental subject and is the object of experience, but Foucault says Kant fails to five adequate relationship between human transcendental and empirical, which causes post-Kantian philosophers to reduce the transcendental to the empirical and led to the emergence of two different ways
(1) Empirical knowledge of the human body as a basic biological positivistic rendition transcendental aesthetic. The result was the discovery that knowledge has anatomo-physiological conditions, that is formed gradually in the body structure. This is taken to indicate the nature of human knowledge has tat empirically determining the character and, at the same time made it an object of knowledge.
(2) This approach is based on historical rather than biological knowledge about the human condition. This led to the Marxist version of a transcendental dialectic, showing a knowledge of history, social or economic conditions in the brief that there is a history of knowledge men who can both be given to empirical knowledge and set its shape (1966: 319).

positivist, which is an alternative philosophical bases, and eschatological, empirical truth based on philosophical truth becomes important to understand the human sciences. Positivists say that our philosophical discourse about knowledge itself right in based on the truth about empirical objects. The eschatological say that our account of empirical scientific and historical objects are true in virtue of the righteousness of our philosophical discourse about knowledge. Foucault says, Comte and Marx both bear out the fact that eschatology and positivism are archaeologically indissociable: a discoure try to be empirical and not critical can not be both positivist and eschatological; humans appeared in it as a truth both reduced and promised (1966:320.) Thus it became clear that the effort (Good Comte, Marx) to implement the reductionist project usually fluctuates between positivism and eschatology.

Foucault says that modern philosophy for the human quest has come to end the death, acceptance of human doubt as the focus of philosophy ineluctable is a new form of dogmatic sleep. Foucault says, in modern thought, what revealed in the foundation's history and the historicity of the right thing for humans is the vacuum created within the same distance (1966:340).

The main concern of the human sciences is human. Relates to man as life sciences, manufacturing and speak but not in the way of empirical sciences of biology, economics and philology. Human sciences such as philosophy concerned with humans as subjects, as an observer that represent the world and not just the product. Human sciences rather than analysis of what human beings by nature, they were a little analysis moving from human nature as a living, producing and speak a different biology, human science related to human life. human sciences to treat life human, labor, and language in the strata of conduct, behavior, attitudes, gestures that have been made, a sentence that has been spoken or written ... (1966: 354)

The human sciences division into three regions epistemological, all divided within themselves, and intertwined with each other, each in accordance with one of the empirical sciences of biology, economics and philology.

Foucault developed the methodology of human sciences in this case three times and holds the division each of the three divisions of human sciences use model derived from empirical science are intertwined. Although Foucault states that each model has a major role and significance in a particular human science, He acknowledged that all models operating across the human sciences. Foucault says, all human knowledge interlock and can always be used to interpret one another; their limit become blurred, intermediary and composite disciplines multiply endlessly, and finally the proper object they may even disappear altogether (1966: 358)

Human sciences the original because they are looking for active role of humans as subjects, who had come to be called as a conscious, and it is through these functions unconscious, conflict, and meaning, human sciences are able to develop an account of how man is a fundamental reality of life, employment and language, which appeared in the empirical sciences as a determinant of human object (Gutting: 1989).

Achievement of human science knowledge domain property, not science, because human knowledge is a form of knowledge, such as physics and biology, they has a legitimate position defined in the modern episteme. They did not have formal criteria of scientific knowledge. So the difference between human sciences and the empirical sciences lies in formalization and testing (Gutting: 1989).

History is a good neighborhood that is special and hazardous to human science. For each of the human sciences he offers background, which establishes and provides with a fixed ground and, as it were, the ground water, but determining the cultural area-the chronological and geographical boundaries, which states that branch of knowledge can be recognized as having validity, but also surrounds the human sciences with a border that limit them and destroy, from the beginning, their claim to validity in the elements of universality (1966:371), Foucault. has a history that has a special role as the object of human beings is the history of science-being. Man treated by science man it would be a man given only through a variety of history. The validity of universal knowledge (such as positivism) can also be tested in each chronological era. We will discuss universality of knowledge later.

Foucault in the last chapter of the order of things, talk about counter science such as psychoanalysis and ethnology. Both the counter instead of developing science general concept of human beings, they question the very concept of man himself. Just as the increase of Kant on the question about the condition of possibility of representation causes a decrease in representation, so that similar questions about human improvement is a sign of human loss, what Levi-Strauss said of ethnology: they had human soluble.

The modern episteme seems will fail and give way to structuralism and poststructuralism. Thus we have again returned to the language, thinking maybe that, because of modern thought emerged with a dispersion language, which would replace any need unity rebirth. So people that appear in the modern episteme, and would have disappeared with the fall of the modern episteme.

Comte's classification of linear branches of modern knowledge
In the nineteenth century, Auguste Comte changing the Enlightenment idea of progress, to three-stage/law linear view of evolution towards positivism. He outlined three historical phases: (1) theological (2) metaphysical, (3) positive. Comte's three-stage evolutionary view based on the belief that the pursuit of positivistic history, in which The third stage which he called positivism, will consist of observation that leads to general laws that govern human activities. Let us now briefly discuss several important components linear classification.
Let us briefly look at the progress of human civilization Stage Three linear. Year 1822, the first sketch of Positive Philosophy, he argues that "because nature of the human mind "all human knowledge through the" stages of theological or fictitious, the metaphysical or abstract stage, and finally the scientific or positive stage "On theological stage "ideas of the supernatural" operates as a concept is clear, and ". the facts observed explailzed, namely, is looking at a priori, in the case found facts. Metaphysical stage was the style of thinking that operate "in terms of ideas that are no longer at all supernatural and not all natural. In short, these ideas personified abstraction in which the mind can decide to see, either the name of some mystical or supernatural causes of abstract statement of a series of simple phenomena, which, as already close to a theological or scientific stage. (Action: 1958)
Theological stage is reflected in the sense as the divine right of kings. Metaphysical stage involves concepts such as social contract, equality of people, and people's sovereignty. Positivist phase requires (a term coined by Comte) scientific or "sociological" approach to organizational politics. Self-critical of democratic procedures, Comte envisioned a stable society governed by the scientific elite who will use scientific methods to solve human problems and improving social conditions.
According to the theological stage of human thought is the stage of predator-military social organization, according to the stage of positive thinking is positive industrial stage of social organization, while between the two is the stage of non-predatory or defensive military organization where metaphysical ideas developed. There are also development-related feelings, show themselves in the eyes morals of mankind. In the feelings of the people society-military theologico set about their conception of the supernatural world with the rewards and punishments after death. In the community revolutionary, the feelings of men set about their personal worldly interests, so that liberalism is considered at the same time metaphysical and selfish views. On the positive phase of human development agreement that leads to the opinion of the scientific method would, Comte predicting, combining with sociologist awareness about the dependence of each individual on the entire community to produce a regime with '"the love principle, the basic order, and progress to the end." Positive morality-industrial societies will tend to be one of universal love. (Action: 1958).

Classification Comte claims to represent the command from the simple to the complex, and from general to specific, and the sequence is the first mental growth as stated, and the second reversed. We must expect that the order of the mental progress of individuals who simply will represent the sequence of human progress in science, but this is clearly not the case. Mathematics, for instance, the earliest of sciences in developing, handled with a simple, but with the most general and abstract of ideas. His rapid progress was due to the size great to progress according to the law a little mental toughness. It is easier for the mind to work out an ideal world of form, rather than wait to make the induction between the complexity and confusion real world objects. What he means that we are justified in a world of knowledge about what can only stand the test of observation and experimentation. Comte believed that the methods of science natural sciences such as observation, experimentation, verification, etc. can be used to study and solve human problems.

Comte then began using the three-state legal progress science as the basis from which to argue for the existence of laws governing the progress of other aspects of society. First, he appeals to the fact that changes in one aspect of society will bring changes in other aspects in an effort to establish the existence of static laws of social science social balance. Comte further said that apart from having no law social dynamics that describe aspects of community development in addition to scientific development. Other aspects of society must progress to follow scientific developments, so to avoid the decomposition of the system.

Comte believed that the purpose of the positivist method is to find the facts and truth, which is the ultimate goal of science. Comte believed that progressive positive science will undoubtedly lead to the betterment of society, as scientific advances have produced colonized and what Foucault calls, disciplinary society. Comte believe that the scientific knowledge of social science will encourage the government to acknowledge that there are certain limitations to what they can expect to force or persuade their subjects to do, but Foucault that provide knowledge resources of Transportation which Comte did not talk about. Application of positive methods have yielded greed and authoritative natural sciences, and led to the development agreed and the same authoritative science community. Although, Comte rejected belief in the transcendent, he recognizes the value of religion in contributing to social stability. In Polity System Positive he proposed his religion of humanity, which aims to encourage socially beneficial behavior.

Comte believed that because human nature everywhere one and the community, The same was always going to develop in accordance with the laws of the same. These laws can be found through a study of human society's most sophisticated. Local factors such as race and climate can not change the nature of this development. They only affect the rate at which society moves from one country to the next in a series of social. For this reason, Comte opinion non-Western societies solely to represent the previous state of social development through Western Europe that has been passed.

Thus, Comte believed in evolution stage and liner developmental theory of human progress based on scientific positivism of law, where the laws of evolution can be generalized universal because human nature alike. And the ultimate goal of positivism is to find the truth, universal truths that govern society. Comte's positivism as later stages of growth theory put forward by psychologists, which evolved into humans, just as children grow-up to adulthood. Comtean positivism later on taken by Durkheim, who proposed the positivist ideas like evolution of mechanical and organic solidarity, and to some extent also Marx (evolutionary history and revolutionary) in the case of dialectical materialism.

The main point of contradiction between Comte and Foucault
As we have discussed both stages Comtean and episteme Foucaudian, and now let us move toward criticism Foucault linear stage of knowledge put forward by Comte. My main criticism has been little touched Foucault, I now will try to discuss them briefly.

The first point of contradiction between Comte and Foucault is about, linear classification branch of knowledge. Comte proposed three stages of progress and knowledge, saying that theological knowledge through meta-physical and finally to the scientific, which he called positivism. Comte says that each stage of the forms of knowledge hierarchy, where the scientific positivism or progressive occupies the highest place. Comte believed that the higher hierarchy of knowledge, the more rationalistic and progressive. As Canguilheim place, progress means a rejection of childishness and the prejudices of mankind, and recognition of his error (1988:315).

Positive phase, according to Comte, "It is final mode will be borne by any science; first two are destined only to prepare the way for it gradually At this stage the relevant facts in terms of ideas or common law at all. Positive for suggested or confirmed by the facts themselves. Efforts continue to be done to reduce them as small a number as possible, but without introducing Any hypothesis that can not be a few days will be verified by observation, and without regard them as anything but a means to express general phenomenon "The Law Stage Three is, in the first place, the formulation. theory of knowledge. In this aspect, the examination was a problem for philosophy. In the second place, used by Comte to interpret history Western science and society. In this case it is alleged sociological law. (Action: 1958).

Comte refers to positive science as "the continuous work of all mankind, without a specific inventor, "and said that" despite the departure point, the reason the public should set a general goal positive speculation, ultimately always directed related to the universal predictions. Needs "is the main reason why the theological and metaphysical Modes of thought denied that they did not connect with the intellect and good practice in ways that are not positive mode (Actions: 1958).

Comte also indicates that the report only verified and tested significant. He considers that every propositions that are not strictly reducible to a simple greeting from particuar-fact or general well-may have no obvious or understood the meaning for us ... Comte used as a stick verifiability which can be used to overcome metaphysics. This is especially important for the Comte, in turn from the three stages of intellectual development. All science has itself gone through periods of dominance and by, espirit metaphysique 'l' '(1971:39).

Comte's critique of Foucault is that, knowledge can not be regulated by way of progressive and linear hierarchy, but must be understood within the episteme itself. That knowledge must be understood in its own time, context and importance or place in the period, and we can not just saying that knowledge is savage resurrection. Rather than see the classification of knowledge in terms of linear Foucault has tried to understand it in terms of epistemological break and rupture, and say that it is the duty of historians to understand knowledge in terms of uniformity and continuity. So, Canguilheim correct to say that life in the twentieth century, we can understand why the nineteenth century took a critical view of eighteen, even though I thought it was following his steps (1998:322). Levy Strauss argues that it is unacceptable to discredit the cold in the ground which means they produce an ancient ... (1998:224).

Foucault said that, the "impurity" of what intrinsic which we call "his reasonn-rooting" in the culture and community, involvement with the powers and interests, the historical variability categories and criteria, which are manifested, sensual, and practically engaged character of its bearer (McCarthy: 1990). Foucault refused Comtean image of the rational autonomous subject is placed on top of the world who seek to represent objects and, through a representative, to master. Foucault thinks the reason, the cognitive work as well, which is embedded in the socio-cultural environment.

Comte use positive ideas about the science of human sciences such as sociology and stated that it is the science community. He said that such an empirical sociology of science can be measured and mathematized. But Foucault says that to seek to harmonize modern knowledge on the basis of mathematics is to be subject to one point of view of objectivity in knowledge about the positive question of each branch knowledge. Foucault says that neither the empirical sciences and humans have common roots and soil and trail connections in the pre-enlightenment era.

Comte as other natural scientists propose that the main aim of positivism is to search for ultimate truth and facts, which are universal. This idea was further popularized by Durkheim in the Rules of sociological method which he discusses the proper methods of sociological research based on primary facts. The main question is that Foucault, there can be a single universal truth? Foucault thinks that will answer 'No', because the truth is bound episteme, and what is right for one episteme may not be true for the other. Foucault thought that, like other practices, epistemic practices should also be understood in their socio-cultural context. So, in this sense, Foucault argues that the theory of knowledge is part of a theory of society, which itself embedded in a practical context, and a slightly different way.

Moreover, Foucault is critical of the role that social sciences and social science trained "experts" play in the process of "rationalization." Foucault's view of rationality that came to prevail in modern society as potentially instrumental to extend our mastery over physical world and the social, technical rationality and calculation, regulation and administration, in seeking more effective forms of domination. Because the human sciences have helped his best in build and maintain this bar "iron cage," to use Max Weber's phrase, they are the main target of criticism genealogy and dialectics (McCarthy: 1990) ..

Since the Enlightenment, history and ideas reasonhas always arise, and that is why Foucault says, "I think that the central issue of philosophy and critical thinking since the eighteenth century always, still, and will, I hope, remain the question: Is this the reason that we use? What are its historical effects "Of course, in our own day, we must add:" What are its limits and what dangers? How do we exist as rational beings, fortunately committed to practicing rationality which unfortunately crisscrossed by intrinsic dangers (McCarthy: 1990) Foucault that the answer to this question in the history of genealogy, which emphasizes the local and contingent aspects of the prevailing forms of rationality than their universality.

Each society, as Foucault said, "Has the regime of truth," 'and genealogy are interested precisely in how we organize ourselves and others through production. Focusing primarily on the human sciences "Man" is an object-he checked the various ways in which power relations both production conditions and the effects of the truth about human. In the area of investigation ranging from medicine to psychiatry and penology and population studies, he reveals the feedback relations that obtain between the power held over people to retrieve data from and about them (McCarthy: 1990). What separates this from the universal oriented "analytic truth" is the institutionalization and rationalization of knowledge such as psychiatry, criminology etc. so basically Foucault points to the knowledge-power nexus in the modern episteme.
Along with other thinkers Foucault same or even more important than rational and progressive knowledge is as follows Comte-Freud, Nietzsche, Canguilheim, Levi-Strauss, etc.
Freud, we live in a very unusual period. We find a surprise that progress has been allied with barbarism. Nietzsche says, progress is just a modern idea, that idea is false (1998:326). Canguilheim said, It is it is possible to reject evolutionism and the conception of linear progress without, hopefully, succumbing to the temptations that naive retrograde. We can it is, compare the historical society different, or different states of the same society, I am in many ways and according to several criteria. According to Levi-Strauss, the so-called primitive societies do not represent sates that have been exceeded by the progress made by the so-called civilized society: they are different solutions to analog problems, and their value can not be measured by standard imported from outside (1998:324). So Levi Strauss has challenged the paradox of progressive ideology of civilized man, by pointing at it when it brings destruction in the name of progress.
In conclusion it can be said that the classification of linear and progressive modern knowledge by Comte being denied their rights by Foucault and also by others such as Canguilheim, because society can not be understood only in terms of quantification and rationalism does not always move toward a higher stage of human conversation, but it can be said in words that Canguilheim, dark side of enlightenment rationalism is at 15 working days for the children.

Bibliography
(1) Foucault, M (1966) The Order of Things: an archeology of knowledge human. London. Tavistock Publications.
(2) Gutting, G (1989) Michael Foucault's Archaeology of Scientific Reason. Cambridge / New York. Cambridge University press.
Articles
(1) Canguilheim, H (1998) Decrease in the idea of progress', Economy and Society (27, 2 & 3) pp 313-329.
(2) Ludden, L (1971) Towards assessment re-Comte Positive Method ', Philosophy of Science, vol. 38, NO. 1. pp 35-53.
(3) McCarthy, T (1990) The Critique of Reason is not pure: Foucault and the Frankfurt School of Political Theory,, Vol. 18, No. 3. pp 437-469
(4) Acton, HB (1951) Comte's Positivism and the Science Society, Philosophy, Vol. 26, No. 99. p. 291-310.