Logical Positivism

[coberst]

Logical Positivism

Following WWI a group of scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers gathered in Vienna to discuss recent events in logic. This informal gathering, labeled as the Vienna Circle, sought a formal and systematic reduction of human knowledge to ‘acceptable levels’.

Logical positivism, aka logical empiricism, resulted from this meeting. Logical positivism allows only logical tautologies and first-person observations to be considered as accurate forms of acceptable knowledge. The influences resulting from the Vienna Circle have proven to be enormous.

A sentence is factually significant only if I know what observations make it true or false. This idea, logical empiricism, leaves no room for anything to be considered as significant knowledge except empirical observations and meaningless but useful tautologies of math and logic.

Rudolf Carnap’s book “The Logical Structure of the World” (1929) attempts to construct in scientific language the structure of the whole world. It is this detailed analysis that led to the discovery of the difficulties of this procedure. The result was Karl Popper’s insight that we cannot establish truth but we can only prove that which is false; this leads into Popper’s theory of falsifyability.

This program of logical positivism left little room for serious considerations of value and morality.

Five decades passed, following the Vienna Circle, before John Rawls broke up the strangle-hold on moral considerations exerted by logical positivism. Rawls book “A Theory of Justice” constructs a theory of justice that is somewhat like constructing the grammar of a natural language.

Questions for discussion:

Did you realize that we cannot prove the truth of any factual claim?

What are useful tautologies of math and logic?

[MidGe]

I am glad you read John Rawls, coberst, altough he died five years ago. You are starting to catch up with more contemporary ideas and authors. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
I am glad you read John Rawls, coberst, altough he died five years ago. You are starting to catch up with more contemporary ideas and authors. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The value of the output of a great thinker is not dependent upon the date s/he died.

[aeest400]

Crap. I wrote a bunch discussing relationship, or lack thereof, between logical positism and twentieth century moral philosophy and accidently deleted it, so I'll just "answer" your questions.

1) Did you realize that we cannot prove the truth of any factual claim?

Sure, under certain uses of "prove" "truth" and "factual claim." Under others, not so much. Do you realize that, as you seem to be using these terms, we also can't "prove the falsehood of any factual claim." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem-Quine_thesis for discussion.

2) What are useful tautologies of math and logic?
A=A

Not sure where you were going with this post.

[reup]

lol owned

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]

Did you realize that we cannot prove the truth of any factual claim?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But that hardly matters in a practical sense.

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
Crap. I wrote a bunch discussing relationship, or lack thereof, between logical positism and twentieth century moral philosophy and accidently deleted it, so I'll just "answer" your questions.

1) Did you realize that we cannot prove the truth of any factual claim?

Sure, under certain uses of "prove" "truth" and "factual claim." Under others, not so much. Do you realize that, as you seem to be using these terms, we also can't "prove the falsehood of any factual claim." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem-Quine_thesis for discussion.

2) What are useful tautologies of math and logic?
A=A

Not sure where you were going with this post.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can prove a falsehood but we cannot prove a truthe. According to Popper if a falsehood cannot be proven then the statement is not a scientific statement. Such a statement might be God does exist. Or God does not exist. Neither can be falsefied.

Math and logic are closed systems and everything in a closed system is a tautology.

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did you realize that we cannot prove the truth of any factual claim?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But that hardly matters in a practical sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an odd statement.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]


We can prove a falsehood but we cannot prove a truthe. According to Popper if a falsehood cannot be proven then the statement is not a scientific statement. Such a statement might be God does exist. Or God does not exist. Neither can be falsefied.



[/ QUOTE ]

Popper proposed "falsification" as a criterion of demarcation between science and pseudo-science. Popper felt that we needed a logically valid form of inference as the model for theory acceptance, and since inferences modeled on the confirmation of a theory/hypothesis are not logically valid, Popper thought science should be understood as operating according to the logic of falsification.

The so-called Duhem-Quine thesis (really the version that is taken to apply to all of science is Quine's, since Duhem thought it was limited to physics) is partly a response to Popper's criterion. If Quine is right not only can you not establish an empirical theory or hypothesis as true through experimentation/confirmation, but you cannot establish it as false either.

Logicial positivism died as a philosophical movement circa 1950's, especially with the publication of Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" in 1951, although I think the verificationist spirit lives on in many academic corrodors.

Coberst--are the words in the OP yours? If not, please provide references.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Did you realize that we cannot prove the truth of any factual claim?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never studied LP but it appears to me this statement suffers the same problem as all skepticism - it's self-refuting. If the statement is itself a factual claim it can't be proved.

[aeest400]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


We can prove a falsehood but we cannot prove a truthe. According to Popper if a falsehood cannot be proven then the statement is not a scientific statement. Such a statement might be God does exist. Or God does not exist. Neither can be falsefied.



[/ QUOTE ]

Popper proposed "falsification" as a criterion of demarcation between science and pseudo-science. Popper felt that we needed a logically valid form of inference as the model for theory acceptance, and since inferences modeled on the confirmation of a theory/hypothesis are not logically valid, Popper thought science should be understood as operating according to the logic of falsification.

The so-called Duhem-Quine thesis (really the version that is taken to apply to all of science is Quine's, since Duhem thought it was limited to physics) is partly a response to Popper's criterion. If Quine is right not only can you not establish an empirical theory or hypothesis as true through experimentation/confirmation, but you cannot establish it as false either.

Logicial positivism died as a philosophical movement circa 1950's, especially with the publication of Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" in 1951, although I think the verificationist spirit lives on in many academic corrodors.

Coberst--are the words in the OP yours? If not, please provide references.

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of what I accidently erased mentioned Two Dogmas, which was sort of the death knell of logical positivism (if not socially, at least philosophically). Nice to see you policing the boards Philo.

I took a class from a very good young philosopher, Alan Richardson, who has written widely about logical positivism and its history (see http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=1459, a more or less random link I found, for a nice discussion of some of the main historical/philosophical issues related to logical empiricism in the context of a review of one of Richardson's books).

Sorry to be so short with OP, but I think if he (or anyone else) reads this he'll gain a better sense of what logical empiricism is/was and its place in twentith century analytic philosophy.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did you realize that we cannot prove the truth of any factual claim?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never studied LP but it appears to me this statement suffers the same problem as all skepticism - it's self-refuting. If the statement is itself a factual claim it can't be proved.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's terribly ironic that you would be the one to point this out, after you quit responding to me when I observed that what seems to be your basic epistemology (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=9684202&page=0&vc=1) contains the same error.

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


We can prove a falsehood but we cannot prove a truthe. According to Popper if a falsehood cannot be proven then the statement is not a scientific statement. Such a statement might be God does exist. Or God does not exist. Neither can be falsefied.



[/ QUOTE ]

Popper proposed "falsification" as a criterion of demarcation between science and pseudo-science. Popper felt that we needed a logically valid form of inference as the model for theory acceptance, and since inferences modeled on the confirmation of a theory/hypothesis are not logically valid, Popper thought science should be understood as operating according to the logic of falsification.

The so-called Duhem-Quine thesis (really the version that is taken to apply to all of science is Quine's, since Duhem thought it was limited to physics) is partly a response to Popper's criterion. If Quine is right not only can you not establish an empirical theory or hypothesis as true through experimentation/confirmation, but you cannot establish it as false either.

Logicial positivism died as a philosophical movement circa 1950's, especially with the publication of Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" in 1951, although I think the verificationist spirit lives on in many academic corrodors.

Coberst--are the words in the OP yours? If not, please provide references.

[/ QUOTE ]

The words are mine. I use quotation marks when I use the words of someone else.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did you realize that we cannot prove the truth of any factual claim?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never studied LP but it appears to me this statement suffers the same problem as all skepticism - it's self-refuting. If the statement is itself a factual claim it can't be proved.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the criticisms of logical positivism was that the verificationist principle itself (which said basically that a sentence is only meaningful if it can be verified empirically), was itself not empirically verifiable.

[coberst]

Philo

Very good example.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
According to Popper if a falsehood cannot be proven then the statement is not a scientific statement. Such a statement might be God does exist. Or God does not exist. Neither can be falsefied.

[/ QUOTE ]

"God does not exist" can of course be falsified, by discovering that God does in fact exist. Perhaps one of the many reasons its the sounder of the two hypothesis?

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
According to Popper if a falsehood cannot be proven then the statement is not a scientific statement. Such a statement might be God does exist. Or God does not exist. Neither can be falsefied.

[/ QUOTE ]

"God does not exist" can of course be falsified, by discovering that God does in fact exist. Perhaps one of the many reasons its the sounder of the two hypothesis?

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you go about doing this?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
"God does not exist" can of course be falsified, by discovering that God does in fact exist. Perhaps one of the many reasons its the sounder of the two hypothesis?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is quite right. Whether you go with the original form of Logical Positivism with its "verification" principle, or with what I think is just an ammendend form with its "falsification", the basic idea remains that only those propositions that can be addressed by way of empirical evidence have meaning. Both forms disallow propositions which cannot be addressed by way of objective empirical evidence.

So the proposition, "A being exists that cannot be addressed by way of objective empirical evidence" is disqualified from being meaningful. Under this regime it is then just as meaningless to assert that "There is no being that exists which cannot be addressed by way of objective empirical evidence". The Form only looks falsifiable. That appearance does not make it more viable nor more meaningful under the regime.

PairTheBoard

[Alex-db]

Perhaps..

Empirically?:
Recorded miracle, direct observed intervention, measure effect of prayer, discover xth dimension communication phone and give him a call, etc.

Logically?:
show contradictions in the hypothesised characteristics.

Isn't this quite straight-forward? Hidden existence being unfalsifiable but nonexistence being completely falsifiable?

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
So the proposition, "A being exists that cannot be addressed by way of objective empirical evidence" is disqualified from being meaningful. Under this regime it is then just as meaningless to assert that "There is no being that exists which cannot be addressed by way of objective empirical evidence". The Form only looks falsifiable. That appearance does not make it more viable nor more meaningful under the regime.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this at a very high level, but I was under the impression that nearly all definitions of God imply some empirical effects such that suggesting he exists implies he exists. To hypothesise that something exists that we will NEVER be able to detect is somewhere between negative and silly.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the proposition, "A being exists that cannot be addressed by way of objective empirical evidence" is disqualified from being meaningful. Under this regime it is then just as meaningless to assert that "There is no being that exists which cannot be addressed by way of objective empirical evidence". The Form only looks falsifiable. That appearance does not make it more viable nor more meaningful under the regime.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this at a very high level, but I was under the impression that nearly all definitions of God imply some empirical effects such that suggesting he exists implies he exists. To hypothesise that something exists that we will NEVER be able to detect is somewhere between negative and silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice I said "objective" empirical evidence. Subjective experience does not count under the regime. I think the regime works well for establishing the kind of statements that are meaningful for science. But I think it overreaches when it denies meaning to Spiritual Propositions.

PairTheBoard

[Alex-db]

The existence of a creator is undoubtably an objective question. Whether we like the creator would be subjective.

I think you might be using 'subjective' in the sense of a person's tendency to make mistakes in objective areas, but in that sense, such as claiming alternative medicine does work but only in subjective experience, 'subjective' is just a synonym for 'wrong'.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
The existence of a creator is undoubtably an objective question. Whether we like the creator would be subjective.


[/ QUOTE ]

My ears perk up when I hear terms like clearly, incontestably, incontrovertibly, indubitably, obviously, undeniably, undoubtedly, etc. I often find that what they're saying is anything but.

I think you're using the term "objective" here in the sense that the question appears to be concerned with some kind of "object". Thus an assertion about that object's existence is an objective questions.

I'm using the term "objective" as a descriptor for "evidence". Objective evidence is the kind that everybody can look at on the same basis. It is empirical. It can be measured and agreed on. It can be duplicated. Subjective experience is personal. It is "subject to" personal taste. I think an Andy Warhol is a compelling work of art. You think it's just a can of soup.

So according to my meaning of "objective evidence", the existence of a creator who is beyond objective evidence is not a question subject to objective evidence. Both "verification" and "falsifiabilty" regimes of Positivism would not allow the question as having any meaning. I agree, the question does not have scientific meaning. But it does have meaning for those who allow subjective experience as a means for examining it.

PairTheBoard

[Alex-db]

We would both agree that the soup can existed, but could disagree on whether the 'art' existed.

The soup can, having the subjective quality of 'art' cannot in return make any objective effects, since then it could become objective evidence for itself.

So I think the subjective-God hypothesis is only coherent if no intervention (or usefulness!) is ever proposed. So its not a hypothesis about a creator or miracle maker or similar, but about a result of human imagination, just like art.

[Alex-db]

I think we could agree if you are using the term "God" as a metaphor for deep abstract thought or similar.

As a personified being who either did or did not create us, the question of his existence is only satisfactory if it is objective.

I imagine that searching for something internal and less well defined, like a meditational nirvana, would better suit your art and poetry comparisons.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we could agree if you are using the term "God" as a metaphor for deep abstract thought or similar.

As a personified being who either did or did not create us, the question of his existence is only satisfactory if it is objective.

I imagine that searching for something internal and less well defined, like a meditational nirvana, would better suit your art and poetry comparisons.

[/ QUOTE ]

And in comes Alex-db to take up the charge against PTB for me! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
We would both agree that the soup can existed, but could disagree on whether the 'art' existed.

The soup can, having the subjective quality of 'art' cannot in return make any objective effects, since then it could become objective evidence for itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, we're talking about a painting here. Yes, the painting as Art cannot have any "objective" effects. But it can have "subjective" effects. Those subjective effects are meaningful to the Art lover. Does the "Art" exist? The analogy breaks down a little here. Without the observer it's hard to see how it does. But if God can be experienced subjectively in the same way that Art is, I think it makes more sense to talk about that God existing without the subjective observer. Although even then, I'm afraid the word "exists" is too mundane for what we're trying to talk about.

[ QUOTE ]

So I think the subjective-God hypothesis is only coherent if no intervention (or usefulness!) is ever proposed. So its not a hypothesis about a creator or miracle maker or similar, but about a result of human imagination, just like art.

[/ QUOTE ]

The intervention and usefulness is also subjective. It can change a person's attitude toward life and the way he lives. When I talk about God I try not to be pinned down by the traditional descriptions. God is a word pointing to something that is a great mystery. We have become so accustomed to the "machine" metaphor of science that we tend to presume that the only view of God that is meaningful is that of a Great Mechanic. I don't buy that.

I do appreciate Buddhism, Zen, and the Tao. I appreciate meditation according to those teachings. But I also appreciate Prayer and the faith that Love is the ground and source of existence. I seek a personal relationship with that Love Source and I'm not ashamed that my human limitations require me to personify it in order to better relate to it. None of this in my view diminishes its reality.

PairTheBoard