We've started talking about the 2nd great debate: Behavioralism v Traditionalism. The debate lasted from the 40s-'60s. Alot of the knowledge that the 2nd debate talked about was progressing knowledge from the 1st debate, and what was achieved during that time. This movement brought IR into the social sciences, the modern social sciences, like sociology and psychology instead of humanistic studies like law, history, or philosophy. Behavioralism was the new "scientism" and created the structures that we can see today, processes, institutions-skeleton like distributions, fabrics, networks, or sequences. Traditionalism studied IR in the library and focused on the imagination when looking at the Aristotelian trichotomy, the myths, fantasies, beliefs, stereotypes, etc..One could find out all of this at the library. Behavioralism cut out the imagination, it worked with the scientific method, from the top down. But all this was concerned with how we know things in IR. Explaining phenomena in a positivist way deals with idea that knowledge is accumulaive, you CAN progress through studying. It contends that sense perceptions ar the only admissible basis of human knowledge. Empirical knowledge is gained through observation and experiment.
The Archimedean point is a place away from the study or "battlefield" of IR, this is why Norway was picked as a location to hand out the Nobel Prize, they were not involved on the international scene like a lot of other countries. This is also why Wales was picked to be a location for the first dept. of IR instead of Oxford, it is a point at which an observer can view the totality of the phenomenon objectively.
Ways of knowing:
Diachrony, is the importance of historic knowledge, comparative studies between different points of time, the process of becoming
Synchrony is dissimilar to the above because this way of learning looks back at history and the accumulation of events to explain or predict future events.