18

An important thing to keep in mind when reading Nietzsche is that most of the time he is trying to reveal things through insights. The point of this particular quotation is to reveal the assumption at the base of many philosophies (in this case, most specifically positivism): that objective facts exist. Positivism holds, roughly, that the phenomena we ...


10

These questions have the property that, whatever the hypothetical answer would be, every one of your perceptions of the world is exactly the same. That is absolutely untrue. My perception of the world might be profoundly different if I knew with certainty information regarding the existence of souls, or the independence of mind from body, or the source of ...


7

These questions have the property that, whatever the hypothetical answer would be, every one of your perceptions of the world is exactly the same. (emphasis mine). You have imported an assumption here that, I think, explains why all of your examples are problematic. What precisely do you mean by the world? If souls are real, and they (we) exist after ...


7

What you call "Positivism" there is but a crude description of a principle that has been associated with them. Let's consider a more faithful description of the so-called empiricist criterion of meaningfulness: Criterion. (Hempel 1965b) A sentence makes a cognitively significant assertion, and thus can be said to be either true or false, if and only if ...


6

The article is moderately amusing but just misguided. I wouldn't read too much into the positivism espoused there. The issue is not that scientists are cautious with "X is causing Y" because of a cultural fondness for a strict form of positivism. Rather, the point of science is to say just how likely it is that various factors are playing a role in ...


6

Like you I see more similarities than dissimilarities between empiricism and logical positivism. In a broad sense, empiricism also covers logical positivism. In a narrow sense both differ by the historical time and the opponents of each school of thinking - as Mauro explains in his comment. A main topic of logical positivism from 20th century was the ...


6

Empiricism is the thesis that knowledge comes from experience. Logical positivism is the thesis that the meaning of a sentence is the set of conditions under which that sentence could be verified to be true. (This implies that any sentence which cannot be verified empirically is either meaningless nonsense, or a tautology.) All logical positivists are ...


5

somehow on contrary there is much difference ,sometimes even on the sense which these two are used. ("logical") positivism (so called "logical empiricism" or "scientific empiricism"), a movement associated with Vienna Circle. Their mission was to 'unite' the science (especially as opposed to metaphysics) and give a correct sketch,description of scientific ...


5

The most important development in the rejection of positivism, from the metaphysical perspective, is that it allowed for a revisit and reexamination of the philosophical systems thinkers, like Aristotle, Spinoza, Kant and Hegel. This resulted in a renewed appreciation for the fact that any study of knowledge or science or reality could not be reduced to any ...


4

To understand this idea, you need to go back to Nietzsche's insight that there can be no apprehension of reality without a perceiving mind. (Makes sense, right?) As beings we are perceivers: we must be in order to even see and judge something a fact. There is no perception without a human subject--but so long as the filter of human subjectivity is present we ...


4

The quote gave me some problems as well, but as I understand it, Nietzsche is here taking a very basic position in contemporary philosophy. Regardless of what facts exist "out there", what we always have and can only have are interpretations of them in our mind. There is no presumed identity between the contents of our mind and the facts out there, and in ...


4

The author you quote seems to be oversimplifying, but it is possible to understand some work of the logical positivists as an attempt at a purely syntactic approach to expressing the relation between evidence and hypothesis. Rudolf Carnap, in particular, attempted to set out a formal logic of induction in which inductive probabilities can be derived from ...


3

Positivism is a form of empiricism, and as such, is antithetical to rationalism and Plato's theory of forms, and eventually with any system that asserts the existence of a reality independent of and beyond the senses. More recently, in the 20th century, several schools, such as phenomenology, existentialism, sturcturalism, postmodernism, and (...


3

Logical Positivism, seems to me a philosophy that evolved by taking the scientific viewpoint as the only legitimate way to ask meaningful questions. Its greatest failing is that its not very imaginative. Its an interesting perspective to hold for a while, but to hold it exclusively feels severely limiting. Also, historically its not even true as to how ...


3

It can be very meaningful, and just how meaningful will vary depending on the person and the question. Even if it doesn't alter the observable (physical) world ("your perceptions of the world"), it is still meaningful if it alters human behavior. In fact, it is strange to me that you don't seem to consider human behavior as a "perceptible difference" of the ...


3

Positivism took its general shape during the 19th when "Naturphilosophie" went out of fashion and science and philosophy became separate realms. In Comte's account humanity evolved from religious views to metaphysics and ultimately to positivism. As positivism mimics science it could not really obstruct discoveries. Actually nothing in (history of) ...


2

The answer is no, when you examine his words, yes if you examine the deed: wikipedia has: Karl Marx died before the establishment of formal social science but nonetheless fiercely rejected Comtean sociological positivism (despite himself attempting to establish a historical materialist 'science of society')


2

You are not wrong in your general response. The word "positive" is not generally used this way by philosophers of science, and was rarely used that way even by most positivists. The positivists also did not think of it as requiring falsifiability. One could, following Popper, argue that claims which are substantive not only must be derived from observation ...


2

The article should be read as polemic (but referencing the science established under the aegis of the IPCC), and as such both well-written and unusual in the tactics they've chosen. Twentieth-century scientists saw themselves as the descendants of an empirical tradition often referred to as positivism – after the nineteenth-century French philosopher ...


2

Nietzsche did believe in the existence of an objective reality, which he considered self-evident. However, he also believed that we have no means of ascertaining its nature, and that our assertions about this objective reality are fundamentally subjective and often wrong. When he says that there are no facts, he means that there is so absolute truth with ...


2

'Jobermark' got it right when the question is answered within philosophy of science. Kuhn's revolutionary view of scientific progress is the opposite to the linear view of logical positivists (or logical empiricists). Logical positivist theories (e.g., Carnap's confirmationism and Popper's falsificationism) shared the idea that science progresses in a ...


2

First off, I'm not sure that Dirac was wedded to logical positivism, so his writing need not be consistent with this view of physics. A good example framework for getting your head around this is by considering iterated Stern-Gerlach experiments. A Stern-Gerlach experiment uses spatially varying magnetic fields to separate beams of particles on the basis ...


2

No, it's not. The basic ideal of positivism, both old and new, was to purify science by eliminating from it all speculation (the positivists identified all speculation with "metaphysics", in a derogatory sense). The older kind of positivism was just more humble. It was a philosophy of science. A typical project of the old positivism was Ernst Mach's attempt ...


1

From the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy entry on Logical Empiricism: The term ‘logical empiricism’ has no very precise boundaries and still less that distinguishes it from ‘logical positivism’. It is therefore hard to map. [...] It does not, however, distinguish logical empiricism from logical positivism, and it is doubtful that any principled such ...


1

Finally, I found what I was looking for. That's Evolutionary Epistemology.


1

No. Statistics, a form of mathematics, is a key tool for sociologists. Standard deviations, mean, averages, remember the "Bell Curve" controversy?


1

According to Bergson, there are two kinds of time, homogeneous and heterogeneous. The latter is the time of our experience, and is named by him 'la durée,' to which no English expression exactly corresponds. Homogeneous time, which is what we ordinarily mean when we use the word time, is, in his view, space, on to which the mind merely projects ...


1

Your friend is confused about a few things, at least based on how you reported them, and incorrect about the claim that every non-"positive statement" is therefore a normative statement. The basic problem is that the terms used in the discussion are not jointly exhaustive in their domain of application. (Two sets are jointly exhaustive iff everything must ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible