Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The problem with logical positivism?

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 10:07:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Forgive me if this is a false representation but I believe it's accurate. Correct me if I made any mistakes.

Logical positivists state that only that which can be experienced has truth-value/meaning. Furthermore they posit to only use observational language or to strive to only use observational language.

My question is, how can logical positivism be empirically verified itself and how can we use observational language to prove it? If only that which can be experienced has truth/value then logical positivism should be able to verified empirically but I don't see how it's possible to a posteriori affirm its truth.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 10:17:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I thought verificationism did it in?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 10:34:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:17:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I thought verificationism did it in?

You'll have to clarify.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
RationalMadman
Posts: 354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 10:36:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:07:16 PM, phantom wrote:
Forgive me if this is a false representation but I believe it's accurate. Correct me if I made any mistakes.

Logical positivists state that only that which can be experienced has truth-value/meaning. Furthermore they posit to only use observational language or to strive to only use observational language.

My question is, how can logical positivism be empirically verified itself and how can we use observational language to prove it? If only that which can be experienced has truth/value then logical positivism should be able to verified empirically but I don't see how it's possible to a posteriori affirm its truth.

By the power of logical positivism i declare that we had gay anal sex last night. This experience has truth even though it was in my dream ;)
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

We didn't fight our way to the top of the food chain to be f***ng vegetarians.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 10:41:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:34:21 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:17:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I thought verificationism did it in?

You'll have to clarify.

They espoused it. It turned out to be a load of crap.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 10:42:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:36:06 PM, RationalMadman wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:07:16 PM, phantom wrote:
Forgive me if this is a false representation but I believe it's accurate. Correct me if I made any mistakes.

Logical positivists state that only that which can be experienced has truth-value/meaning. Furthermore they posit to only use observational language or to strive to only use observational language.

My question is, how can logical positivism be empirically verified itself and how can we use observational language to prove it? If only that which can be experienced has truth/value then logical positivism should be able to verified empirically but I don't see how it's possible to a posteriori affirm its truth.

By the power of logical positivism i declare that we had gay anal sex last night. This experience has truth even though it was in my dream ;)

Truth value =/= truth. The statement, "chocolate ice-cream is better than vanilla" has no truth value because there's no right answer. It's entirely subjective. The statement, "I have bullet proof skin" has truth value even though the statement itself is false.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 11:25:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:41:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:34:21 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:17:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I thought verificationism did it in?

You'll have to clarify.

They espoused it. It turned out to be a load of crap.

The Fool: Well when either of you Sophists can one day just happen to find the ability to give rational Refutation why?

Then I will recognize that you UNDERSTAND what you Speak?

And none of this business from your Home Sections. AKA The Two sections below. For if there is at least one thing I know about you guys is that you guys LOVE THOSE SECTIONS!! Love it!. Especially Phantom, his favorite is the Religious one.

I KNOW YOU DO!!.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2012 11:57:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 11:25:31 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:41:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:34:21 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:17:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I thought verificationism did it in?

You'll have to clarify.

They espoused it. It turned out to be a load of crap.

The Fool: Well when either of you Sophists can one day just happen to find the ability to give rational Refutation why?

Then I will recognize that you UNDERSTAND what you Speak?

Then please tell me what was wrong with my objection. Part of making this thread was to see if it was reasonable or not. I don't care if I'm right or wrong.

And none of this business from your Home Sections. AKA The Two sections below. For if there is at least one thing I know about you guys is that you guys LOVE THOSE SECTIONS!! Love it!. Especially Phantom, his favorite is the Religious one.

I KNOW YOU DO!!.

What does religion and politics have to do with this?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 12:15:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Forgive me if this is a false representation but I believe it's accurate. Correct me if I made any mistakes.

The Fool: I forgive, but I may not forget. Even if I tried my best it would just reminder me more and more.

Its seems you have lost your way again remember last time you strayed from home and The Fool told you "that all you have to do is to click your heels and say there is no place like home." Well this is almost the same, but just as easy.

Step One:
Locate and click the drop down menu button above that says "philosophy" on it?

Step Two:
You should see four buttons below, Press the one that say "Religions"

The Fool wishes you Good luck on you journey, I here they are offering a Gift to people in that section. You do like gifts do you. Well whether or not they are offering that you can't refuse. In fact its freedom that you not allowed to refuse.

Lets just say its the hottest forum on DDO, but there is nothing sexy about it.

Its more like when you have a hot pepper that burns tongue..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................and then times it by infinity.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 12:26:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:07:16 PM, phantom wrote:
Forgive me if this is a false representation but I believe it's accurate. Correct me if I made any mistakes.

Logical positivists state that only that which can be experienced has truth-value/meaning. Furthermore they posit to only use observational language or to strive to only use observational language.

My question is, how can logical positivism be empirically verified itself and how can we use observational language to prove it? If only that which can be experienced has truth/value then logical positivism should be able to verified empirically but I don't see how it's possible to a posteriori affirm its truth.

Would a person who believes color exists only in our ability to perceive it be a 'Logical Positivist?"
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 12:39:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 11:57:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/25/2012 11:25:31 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:41:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:34:21 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:17:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I thought verificationism did it in?

You'll have to clarify.

They espoused it. It turned out to be a load of crap.

The Fool: Well when either of you Sophists can one day just happen to find the ability to give rational Refutation why?

Then I will recognize that you UNDERSTAND what you Speak?

Then please tell me what was wrong with my objection. Part of making this thread was to see if it was reasonable or not. I don't care if I'm right or wrong.

The Fool: Which part of making the thread is it? That is "what does it givith, and what does it takith away?

In fact, a proof that you know something about True Philosophy, would be if you recognize my last question. hmm..

And none of this business from your Home Sections. AKA The Two sections below. For if there is at least one thing I know about you guys is that you guys LOVE THOSE SECTIONS!! Love it!. Especially Phantom, his favorite is the Religious one.

I KNOW YOU DO!!.

What does religion and politics have to do with this?

The Fool: Why do you haunt my hill, little phantom, we are only of the loving kind here. Infact its usually just me up here alone, for I was born to be a fool, and so I was meant to be alone. Up here by my own. Yeah.

http://youtu.be...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 12:50:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 12:26:19 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:07:16 PM, phantom wrote:
Forgive me if this is a false representation but I believe it's accurate. Correct me if I made any mistakes.

Logical positivists state that only that which can be experienced has truth-value/meaning. Furthermore they posit to only use observational language or to strive to only use observational language.

My question is, how can logical positivism be empirically verified itself and how can we use observational language to prove it?

If only that which can be experienced has truth/value then logical positivism should be able to verified empirically but I don't see how it's possible to a posteriori affirm its truth.

Would a person who believes color exists only in our ability to perceive it be a 'Logical Positivist?"

The Fool: What? Its important to remember that this is only Phantom version of the actual positivist view point. There is a more Real version.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 1:14:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:17:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I thought verificationism did it in?

The Fool: I should say, how much you have grown, since I last seent you. But I won't
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 12:44:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 12:15:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Forgive me if this is a false representation but I believe it's accurate. Correct me if I made any mistakes.

The Fool: I forgive, but I may not forget. Even if I tried my best it would just reminder me more and more.

Its seems you have lost your way again remember last time you strayed from home and The Fool told you "that all you have to do is to click your heels and say there is no place like home." Well this is almost the same, but just as easy.

Step One:
Locate and click the drop down menu button above that says "philosophy" on it?

Step Two:
You should see four buttons below, Press the one that say "Religions"

The Fool wishes you Good luck on you journey, I here they are offering a Gift to people in that section. You do like gifts do you. Well whether or not they are offering that you can't refuse. In fact its freedom that you not allowed to refuse.

Lets just say its the hottest forum on DDO, but there is nothing sexy about it.

Its more like when you have a hot pepper that burns tongue..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................and then times it by infinity.

Okay, cool story bro.

You do realize the percentage of philosophy threads I post on is higher than the percentage of religion threads I post on? The religion forum is just way more active.

But I still have no idea what you're talking about.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 12:45:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 12:26:19 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:07:16 PM, phantom wrote:
Forgive me if this is a false representation but I believe it's accurate. Correct me if I made any mistakes.

Logical positivists state that only that which can be experienced has truth-value/meaning. Furthermore they posit to only use observational language or to strive to only use observational language.

My question is, how can logical positivism be empirically verified itself and how can we use observational language to prove it? If only that which can be experienced has truth/value then logical positivism should be able to verified empirically but I don't see how it's possible to a posteriori affirm its truth.

Would a person who believes color exists only in our ability to perceive it be a 'Logical Positivist?"

Not necessarily. Why would he?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 12:51:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 12:39:53 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/25/2012 11:57:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/25/2012 11:25:31 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:41:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:34:21 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:17:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I thought verificationism did it in?

You'll have to clarify.

They espoused it. It turned out to be a load of crap.

The Fool: Well when either of you Sophists can one day just happen to find the ability to give rational Refutation why?

Then I will recognize that you UNDERSTAND what you Speak?

Then please tell me what was wrong with my objection. Part of making this thread was to see if it was reasonable or not. I don't care if I'm right or wrong.

The Fool: Which part of making the thread is it? That is "what does it givith, and what does it takith away?

In fact, a proof that you know something about True Philosophy, would be if you recognize my last question. hmm..

You've got a degree in philosophy you say. All I have is philosophy 101 plus whatever reading I've done on my own and within the time space of less then a year. I don't claim to know a lot about philosophy so please just STFU already.



And none of this business from your Home Sections. AKA The Two sections below. For if there is at least one thing I know about you guys is that you guys LOVE THOSE SECTIONS!! Love it!. Especially Phantom, his favorite is the Religious one.

I KNOW YOU DO!!.

What does religion and politics have to do with this?

The Fool: Why do you haunt my hill, little phantom, we are only of the loving kind here. Infact its usually just me up here alone, for I was born to be a fool, and so I was meant to be alone. Up here by my own. Yeah.

I've no issue with you. Seems I've defended you every time you were banned. You just hate me for some reason. Don't know why.

http://youtu.be...
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 4:37:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:07:16 PM, phantom wrote:
Forgive me if this is a false representation but I believe it's accurate. Correct me if I made any mistakes.

Logical positivists state that only that which can be experienced has truth-value/meaning. Furthermore they posit to only use observational language or to strive to only use observational language.

My question is, how can logical positivism be empirically verified itself and how can we use observational language to prove it? If only that which can be experienced has truth/value then logical positivism should be able to verified empirically but I don't see how it's possible to a posteriori affirm its truth.

They can't. It's interesting to note that today's popular scientism has basically the same issue(s).
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 5:41:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 12:51:36 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/26/2012 12:39:53 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/25/2012 11:57:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/25/2012 11:25:31 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:41:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:34:21 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:17:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I thought verificationism did it in?

You'll have to clarify.

They espoused it. It turned out to be a load of crap.

The Fool: Well when either of you Sophists can one day just happen to find the ability to give rational Refutation why?

Then I will recognize that you UNDERSTAND what you Speak?

Then please tell me what was wrong with my objection. Part of making this thread was to see if it was reasonable or not. I don't care if I'm right or wrong.

The Fool: Which part of making the thread is it? That is "what does it givith, and what does it takith away? (Socrates On Justice)

In fact, a proof that you know something about True Philosophy, would be if you recognize my last question. hmm..

You've got a degree in philosophy you say. All I have is philosophy 101 plus whatever reading I've done on my own and within the time space of less then a year. I don't claim to know a lot about philosophy so please just STFU already.



And none of this business from your Home Sections. AKA The Two sections below. For if there is at least one thing I know about you guys is that you guys LOVE THOSE SECTIONS!! Love it!. Especially Phantom, his favorite is the Religious one.

I KNOW YOU DO!!.

What does religion and politics have to do with this?

The Fool: Why do you haunt my hill, little phantom, we are only of the loving kind here. In-fact its usually just me up here alone, for I was born to be a fool, and so I was meant to be alone. Up here by my own. Yeah.

I've no issue with you. Seems I've defended you every time you were banned. You just hate me for some reason. You are taking me to seriously. <(8D)


http://youtu.be...

The Fool: I am a Fool, nothing more nothing less.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 5:46:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: A positive will Refute himself. You were pretty on, I was just forcing you to use clearer Language. This is Ike, a positivist, He refutes himself. Can you see the problem.

Ike
Before we can proceed to debate or ponder about any subject and the truth of any claims, we must first establish the nature of truth. When one demonstrates the independent truth of a proposition, he has proven it. A proposition is a preexisting expectation then verified for its truth through different means. Expectation must have some sort of embodiment. One must first know what a blue sky is, in order to verify that the sky is indeed blue, upon observation. <(XD) Is there an objective reality with things that are true independent of human cognitive capacities (ie. Logic, sensual perception)? Is it even possible to answer that question? Well, since we know that human logic and perception is inextricably confined within a parameter of logical rules and physical sensory inputs (eyes, ears, taste, touch etc.) and we seek to escape that confinement to find true objective truth it must be impossible to find any truth beyond the subjective base of perception and logic. that confinement is inescapable since those are our only tools of deduction and induction.

There is no such thing as an objective reality, and there is no such thing as objective truth (as far as we're concerned).

The big source of confusion is that we all perceive the same things and reason in the same sense, and so we rely on each other as systems of verification. But since each human being is using the same type of tools to perceive and deduce, another person's account is by no means a positive verification. Thus, our agreement only establishes a network of subjectivity. And should we disagree on something, there is no ultimate truth, or correct answer. I suppose if I were to derive some big conclusion from it, it would be that debating and investigation are futile practices with artificial significance. We debate and investigate to find something true...but yet it isn't true in the sense that we want it to be - it can't be.

The Fool On the Hill
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 7:37:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 12:45:03 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/26/2012 12:26:19 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:07:16 PM, phantom wrote:
Forgive me if this is a false representation but I believe it's accurate. Correct me if I made any mistakes.

Logical positivists state that only that which can be experienced has truth-value/meaning. Furthermore they posit to only use observational language or to strive to only use observational language.

My question is, how can logical positivism be empirically verified itself and how can we use observational language to prove it? If only that which can be experienced has truth/value then logical positivism should be able to verified empirically but I don't see how it's possible to a posteriori affirm its truth.

Would a person who believes color exists only in our ability to perceive it be a 'Logical Positivist?"

Not necessarily. Why would he?

I'm just asking. Can you give an example of what you would consider a "logical positivist" belief to be?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 8:17:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool: A positive will Refute himself. You were pretty on, I was just forcing you to use clearer Language.

What!? lol
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 8:23:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 7:37:22 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/26/2012 12:45:03 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/26/2012 12:26:19 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/25/2012 10:07:16 PM, phantom wrote:
Forgive me if this is a false representation but I believe it's accurate. Correct me if I made any mistakes.

Logical positivists state that only that which can be experienced has truth-value/meaning. Furthermore they posit to only use observational language or to strive to only use observational language.

My question is, how can logical positivism be empirically verified itself and how can we use observational language to prove it? If only that which can be experienced has truth/value then logical positivism should be able to verified empirically but I don't see how it's possible to a posteriori affirm its truth.

Would a person who believes color exists only in our ability to perceive it be a 'Logical Positivist?"

Not necessarily. Why would he?

I'm just asking.

No you're not. Your initial statement about color only existing in our ability to perceive it was supposed to represent my position on color but I'm obviously not a logical positivist so it would be completely illogical for me to believe they were inclusive, yet you ask if they are. You weren't "just asking". I don't know what your point was, but if you were, it wouldn't make sense.

Can you give an example of what you would consider a "logical positivist" belief to be?

Pretty sure I named two.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:01:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The big source of confusion is that we all perceive the same things and reason in the same sense, and so we rely on each other as systems of verification. But since each human being is using the same type of tools to perceive and deduce, another person's account is by no means a positive verification. Thus, our agreement only establishes a network of subjectivity. And should we disagree on something, there is no ultimate truth, or correct answer. I suppose if I were to derive some big conclusion from it, it would be that debating and investigation are futile practices with artificial significance. We debate and investigate to find something true...but yet it isn't true in the sense that we want it to be - it can't be.

Isn't that confusing context with concept though? Our senses are simply the means in which we experience an objective reality, and they also serve as our method of communicating objective conceptual knowledge. To say that something is subjective solely based upon how you explain it isn't very logical. When I'm trying to tell someone that the sky is blue in spanish or in english, I am still communicating the same basic concept; the difference is in the context I'm communicating the concept-the context in this case being language. That isn't to say that the same logic couldn't be applied to two different life forms with the ability to aquire conceptual knowledge based upon different sensory data-this too would be a case of the same concepts, formed in different contexts.

I also contest the statement that we depend on others for verification. To subscribe to that belief would essentially regulate knowledge to the realm of a popularity contest, where whatever the most people believe to be true is true. Verification in knowledge can be found in only one place: objective reality. If reality and knowledge were subjective, then there would be no way to verify any hard scientific fact. Objective reality, in this sense, serves as the positive verification for human knowledge.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 6:18:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:07:16 PM, phantom wrote:
Forgive me if this is a false representation but I believe it's accurate. Correct me if I made any mistakes.

Logical positivists state that only that which can be experienced has truth-value/meaning. Furthermore they posit to only use observational language or to strive to only use observational language.

My question is, how can logical positivism be empirically verified itself and how can we use observational language to prove it? If only that which can be experienced has truth/value then logical positivism should be able to verified empirically but I don't see how it's possible to a posteriori affirm its truth.

Logical positivism has no basis in fact and has been thoroughly discredited, mostly because it self referentially negates itself, there is no evidence for it, and a boatload of evidence against it. It makes a universal claim that eliminates universal claims and it renders inductive reasoning invalid, which is foundational to scientific knowledge. It has some limited application in the scientific method, but only to a very restricted degree, in general, it renders science unworkable and negates all scientific knowledge.

It's principles are still blathered about by uninformed people with an agenda, especially our spiritual detractors, but it is about as dead as a philosophical concept can be.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 11:57:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well for all its failures, I do think it had some good things to say on language at least, in that many of the past problems in philosophy have been due to language misuse and that with improper language usage, we can fall into asking meaningless questions.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 6:58:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 11:57:59 AM, phantom wrote:
Well for all its failures, I do think it had some good things to say on language at least, in that many of the past problems in philosophy have been due to language misuse and that with improper language usage, we can fall into asking meaningless questions.

I'd say Wittgenstein had some good things to say on language, and the logical positivists ran it into the ground.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 7:50:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 6:58:26 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/27/2012 11:57:59 AM, phantom wrote:
Well for all its failures, I do think it had some good things to say on language at least, in that many of the past problems in philosophy have been due to language misuse and that with improper language usage, we can fall into asking meaningless questions.

I'd say Wittgenstein had some good things to say on language, and the logical positivists ran it into the ground.

Didn't Wittgenstein influence the logical positivists a lot?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 9:48:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 7:50:01 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/27/2012 6:58:26 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/27/2012 11:57:59 AM, phantom wrote:
Well for all its failures, I do think it had some good things to say on language at least, in that many of the past problems in philosophy have been due to language misuse and that with improper language usage, we can fall into asking meaningless questions.

I'd say Wittgenstein had some good things to say on language, and the logical positivists ran it into the ground.

Didn't Wittgenstein influence the logical positivists a lot?

That's certainly my understanding, especially the Tractatus, it was somewhat foundational to the Logical Positivist movement.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 4:34:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
phantom, give me a message on this with any questions: this is one of the few fields of philosophy which I truly think I have some amount of knowledge on. Mostly due to studying it for my major coursework pieces in philosophy classes, about 4 seminars on it, and running one on the subject (technically the Vienna Circle's contribution to 20th century philosophy, but they're pretty much the same)
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
jambone
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 2:43:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/25/2012 10:07:16 PM, phantom wrote:
Forgive me if this is a false representation but I believe it's accurate. Correct me if I made any mistakes.

Logical positivists state that only that which can be experienced has truth-value/meaning. Furthermore they posit to only use observational language or to strive to only use observational language.

My question is, how can logical positivism be empirically verified itself and how can we use observational language to prove it? If only that which can be experienced has truth/value then logical positivism should be able to verified empirically but I don't see how it's possible to a posteriori affirm its truth.

All meaning arises through the relation between subject and object. All meaning is a descriptive evaluation of how the AFFECTS of object in turn evokes EFFECTS from our biology. Apparent reality being the collective EFFECTS as experienced by our biological selves--apparent reality you might say is a biological readout. Subject and object you might say stand or fall together, but the meanings derived through that relation/relationship, belong only to the subject never to the object, in the absence of consciousness, the world as object is utterly meaningless. You are in a rather profound way, the author of your own apparent reality, as it is found to be your experience.