On Balance, This House Would Assert Logical Positivism!
Debate Rounds (5)
This debate is regarding Logical Positivism the theory that is used by Hume, Russell and in general all empiricists, et cetera. It is also known as Logical Empiricism.
It is defined as: 'Logical positivism and logical empiricism, which together formed neopositivism, was a movement in Western philosophy that embraced verificationism, an approach that sought to legitimize philosophical discourse on a basis shared with the best examples of empirical sciences. In this theory of knowledge, only statements verifiable either logically or empirically would be cognitively meaningful.'
What this means is that anything which has meaning, any knowledge which can be verified must be verified experimentally. So all knowledge which cannot be empirically verified is meaningless because we cannot neither call it true or false.
I will be arguing against the resolution, and negating it, however since there is a shared burden of proof I will be expected to come up with a counter theory of knowledge.
My opponent must start immediately and may not write anything in the last round except: 'no argument as agreed upon'. No deconstruction or Kripkean semantics are allowed, and will result in a 7 point loss.
I thank my opponent in advance.
It is also knowble by looking to ourselves. Self introspection reveals something interesting.
P1. We can introspect and verify many things about ourselves.
P2. These things must be meaningful, else we dont have any of it verified.
P3. By knowledge alone, we have proven to be meaningful, it must be verifieable.
C. Verifcationism is true
C2. QED Logical Positivism is true.
C3. I am right
I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I must say I am a little disheartened for I expected a longer and more systematic argument. I shall begin by negating Logical Positivism and the arguments of Proposition; I shall then go on to argue my own system of truth: that is Pragmatism. You see my opponent never as such presented any arguments in support of Logical Positivism. A quick read of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will give you at the very least six arguments, my opponent presents none.
1. Of Logical Positivism:
(1.1) The theory of Logical Positivism can be summarized in the following maxim: 'for all knowledge that possess any meaning, it must be experimentally verifiable'. This means that Logical Positivism is a proposition which states that for propositions to be meaningful they must be empirically verifiable.
(1.2) Logical Positivism as a proposition cannot itself be empirically verified, since it is a philosophical theory, Logical Positivism is in itself inherently unprovable. This means that if Logical Positivism is sount, then Logical Positivism is unsound, hence creating a self-defeating theory. This is my first critique of Logical Positivism, that it is a self-refuting theory. My opponent must tackle this argument as it is most important.
(1.3) I do not really understand my opponent's arguments. I am not arguing against propositions having meaning, I am simply stating that they can have meaning even if they cannot be empirically verifiable.
(1.4) Another issue with Logical Positivism is that it makes any form of metaphysics impossible, while I will not argue for metaphysics right now, I will argue for Mathematics. The field of Mathematics which is known as Pure Mathematics is then made meaningless by Logical Positivism. I would argue that Pure Mathematics is accurate because it possess the conceptualization of necessity, the exact reason why we have given experimental technique any credence. We know that experimental results are accurate because they necessarily yield the same results. Mathematics is even more accurate as it results the same result for every person, hence it has a 'conceptualization of necessity'. Every person who solves: x^2+3x+2 will get the exact same answer, which clearly falsifies Logical Positivism.
2. Of Pragmatism:
(2.1) I will now, having shown the self-refuting and anti-reasonable approach of Logical Positivism present a counter theory of knowledge. This theory, that is Pragmatism can be summarized in the following maxim: 'To ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one should consider what practical consequences might result from the truth of that conception—and the sum of these consequences constitute the entire meaning of the conception.' This means that something is meaningful is a practical consequence of that proposition. This means to say: God exists may be untrue or true, but unlike in Logical Positivism where this statement is devout of meaning, it does possess a meaning according to Pragmatic theories because the proposition God exists makes a practical difference.
(2.2) This also allows Pure Mathematics to possess a meaning because the answers may make a practical difference even when it is not possible to demonstrate Mathematics experimentally. Also Pragmatism, unlike Logical Positivism, is not self-defeating.
(2.3) To conclude Pragmatism allows metaphysics, and reasonable statements because it allows one to attribute meaning to statements which are theoretical but make a practical difference. The simple proof of Pragmatism consists in that these statements which are denied by Logical Positivism are shown to be true or false through reason. Since, taking our previous example, there are arguments for and against God it must follow that the proposition: God exists is not meaningless. Thus showing that Logical Positivism is little more than tripe.
Charles Pierce, 1905; Collected Papers (5.9)
Jedi4 forfeited this round.
I'll go right in like the romanian debate monkey.
1.2 this ole argument states positivism is self refuting. I think positivism can be verified, we can emperically verifiy that no statements that cannot be verified have meaning. This means we should have no statement which is meaningful, but makes no predictions in reality. What would such a statement look like? Take figgitnoah. Figgitnoah is meaningless, but we see it makes no predictions and isn't verifiable. Being verifiable means it exists in the world we take figgitnoah and see it is not verifieable and meaning it doesnt exist in the wolrd it cannot exist in the world. If it cannot exist, it's either meaningless or self refuting, but this means the same thing. Moreunder, in order to disprove this, you must assume logical positivism. You have to assume meaning to these words to refute the idea, making this claim circular.
1.3, my arguments were verifiaing logical positivism.
1.4 Math is a concepulaization that can be verified. It is tautological, a single item is 1. This means they have verified themselves. Remember "In this theory of knowledge, only statements verifiable either logically or empirically would be cognitively meaningful" they can be logically verified.
Positivism must be true, as any negation would be illogical and negative.
2.1 Pragmatisim is ambigious. Like a heap of sand, we have a heap and keep adding sand till it becomes a pile. What is the nature of this difference? It makes no sense. Also pragmatiism would say everything is meaningful. Every thing makes a differnece in our brains, we think of the word iegruhgu and our brains try to make sense of it, the word has made a difference.
Also why is prag prag incompatible with positivism? Being verifiaable makes a difference so it means prag prag theory is just an ambigious theory that refutes nothing.
I thank my opponent for his response. I am, I admit slightly confused by his answer because I feel that at certain points what he states does not make much sense. In any case I hope I can decipher and answer his contentions.
3. Of Logical Positivism:
(3.1) I find my opponent's contention baffling to say the least. It was this very contention which made even Ayer accept, and admite regarding this theory: 'the problem is, that it is almost all wrong'. While my opponent asserts that Logical Positivism can be experimentally verified, he gives no method by which it can be experimentally verified. The theory that: anything that is meaningful must have an experimental test, has no experimental test. The reason is that it is a proposition, a theoretical proposition which Logical Positivism asserts. Also this is not circular logic, it is called reducto ad absurdum, when you assume a proposition true, and then after assuming it true test it through, or build on it until it reaches an absurdity. My opponent needs to answer this.
(3.2) Pure Mathematics, such as the example I gave: x^2+3x+2=0 cannot be tested empirically, it is a concept of pure mathematics. That does not mean that it is not right, it does, when used in other equations provide the conceptualization of necessity and therefore is necessarily sound. My opponent did not answer this.
4. Of Pragmatism:
(4.1) My opponent states that Pragmatism is ambigious, he never informs us how it is ambigious. Secondly I would like to reiterate that Pragmatism mentions: 'practical difference'. So while gibberish makes no practical difference and is meaningless, the question of whether God exists makes much difference to Ethics and Metaphysics and is therefore not meaningless. Similarly should like gibberish make a difference with the responses of others, it would be known as language and would be meaingful.
(4.2) I have no idea what the last statement my opponent gave means, to me it is meaningless.
Jedi4 forfeited this round.
I extend all contentions.
Jedi4 forfeited this round.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.