Logical Positivism and why I like it.

[Tostig]

Sir Alfred Ayer's logical positivism impressed me, and has continued to do so, since I studied Emotivism a couple of months ago. Unfortunately we didn't cover his work in much detail, and the Vienna circle were only briefly mentioned. Essentially the position holds that philosophy should aspire to the same sort of rigor as science and that philosophy should provide strict criteria for judging sentences true, false and meaningless by dividing statements into those which are analytic (true a priori) and those which are synthetic (verified by sensory experience).

In many ways this was a continuation of David Hume's scribblings, and with some research I learnt that Kant opposed Hume and defended the idea of synthetic a priori propositions. The more I read, the more I began to warm to it

To be fair, there are problems with the theory, but those are also experienced by science. For instance how do you prove a universal and positive statement such as "All x are y"? Ayer however replied that:

"no proposition, other than a tautology, can possibly be anything more than a probable hypothesis"

And therefore can only be subject to "weak verification." Others however have claimed that general propositions were indeed nonsense.

So why do I like it then? Logical positivism has a "criterion of meaning", which says that a statement is meaningful if and only if it is empirically verifiable. One intended consequence of the verification criterion is that all non-empirical forms of discourse, including ethics and aesthetics, are not "literally" or "cognitively" meaningful, and so belong to "metaphysics". Essentially they aren't worth bothering about.

[Ummon]

Sir Alfred Ayer's logical positivism impressed me, and has continued to do so, since I studied Emotivism a couple of months ago. Unfortunately we didn't cover his work in much detail, and the Vienna circle were only briefly mentioned. Essentially the position holds that philosophy should aspire to the same sort of rigor as science and that philosophy should provide strict criteria for judging sentences true, false and meaningless by dividing statements into those which are analytic (true a priori) and those which are synthetic (verified by sensory experience).

In many ways this was a continuation of David Hume's scribblings, and with some research I learnt that Kant opposed Hume and defended the idea of synthetic a priori propositions. The more I read, the more I began to warm to it

To be fair, there are problems with the theory, but those are also experienced by science. For instance how do you prove a universal and positive statement such as "All x are y"? Ayer however replied that: And therefore can only be subject to "weak verification." Others however have claimed that general propositions were indeed nonsense.

So why do I like it then? Logical positivism has a "criterion of meaning", which says that a statement is meaningful if and only if it is empirically verifiable. One intended consequence of the verification criterion is that all non-empirical forms of discourse, including ethics and aesthetics, are not "literally" or "cognitively" meaningful, and so belong to "metaphysics". Essentially they aren't worth bothering about.

The problem is that verifying anything is impossible. You can only effectively falsify stuff, never verify it. So much for positivism.

[Tostig]

Really, what about analytic truths? For instance the fact that I cannot doubt that I am thinking verifies the existance of something capable of thought, or that my experiences are real (even if what I am experiencing isn't."

[Hanno the Navigator]

The problem is that verifying anything is impossible. You can only effectively falsify stuff, never verify it. So much for positivism.

Echo that. That's why I generally tend towards logical negativism, which is about the same as logical positivism, but it focuses instead on trying to eliminate that what can be falsified.

It won't give you results as quickly, which can sometimes be a pain, but it won't be as misleading in the long run. If rigor is maintained, the number of false positives will vastly exceed false negatives. My scientific training comes in handy at that.

[Ummon]

Actually, you could doubt that you are thinking. It may be someone else, and you might just be his/her/its dream.

[Halie Satanus]

Actually, you could doubt that you are thinking. It may be someone else, and you might just be his/her/its dream.

would'nt that be metaphysical and there for deamed Irrelavant.
Are you ahearing to "i think there for i am" , i dont think this can be proved by analysis a priori(never heard that term before thanks) or sensory, the only truth is death and everything else is blowing in the wind.just my thoughts (oh maybe dylan's)

I like a little metaphysical in my life,while there seems to be a perpensity towards a vulcan life experience on these forums, i think there are indeed more things in heaven and earth.............

[Ummon]

would'nt that be metaphysical and there for deamed Irrelavant.
Are you ahearing to "i think there for i am" , i dont think this can be proved by analysis a priori(never heard that term before thanks) or sensory, the only truth is death and everything else is blowing in the wind.just my thoughts (oh maybe dylan's)

I like a little metaphysical in my life,while there seems to be a perpensity towards a vulcan life experience on these forums, i think there are indeed more things in heaven and earth.............

Ehm not really. He formulated a hypothesis, I showed him he cannot verify it.

[Halie Satanus]

Ehm not really. He formulated a hypothesis, I showed him he cannot verify it.

i think i was agreeing with you, the last sentence of the first post,does that not imply that anything which cannot be proved by observation is "not worth bothering about", including the metapysical is it all the dream of some giant turtle theory. and is that not also a contradiction of the first part of the post?,you can't prove thought so isnt that metaphysics.

i'm asking not being a wise ass :wink:

[Garbarsardar]

Logical positivism has a "criterion of meaning", which says that a statement is meaningful if and only if it is empirically verifiable.

Should be an axiom. Because as a "criterion" it defies verification itself. But if we accept axioms then we cannot have logical positivism.

[Ummon]

Nothing can be proven by obervation, if not by an act of trust in observation itself. I do not imply any judgement on your argument, essentially there is no other way to learn than to trust one's senses, but this trust is by no means logically correct.

[Tostig]

But surely the experiences themselves are certain, even if what you're experiencing, and how you interpret them, is corriguble. Still, you're point is valid. The inevitable conclusion however is one of epistemological solipsism, which is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

[Ummon]

Nothing, absolutely nothing is certain. Not even scientific measure, if you admit that experience is real.

[Lee1026]

Actually, much of math is proven.

[Tostig]

But only if you hold mathmatics to be an analytic truth rather than a synthetic one. It all depends on whether the but only if the axioms of mathmatics are assumed. Apparently.

[Ummon]

Actually, much of math is proven.

Math is something which descends from premises logically. As such, it does allow for complete certainty (most of the times, Godel being considered), but on the other hand it has other drawbacks: it doesn't in any way guerantee that it speaks of reality.

[Lee1026]

Math does not claim to be related to reality in any way what so ever, and this is why we know that in our vector space of R, 1+1 is always 2, because it is defined that way.

[Ummon]

Exactly.

[Tostig]

Exactly, it's only that way because it's defined as such. The fact that it's true doesn't stop it being trivial and innane however.

[Lee1026]

We are in agreement, then.