Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Logical Positivism

ShabShoral
Posts: 3,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 8:26:54 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Any refutations?
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 9:11:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 8:26:54 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Any refutations?

The effects it has on your friendships and relationships.
The shutting down of certain parts of your thinking process.
Snap decisions
The effect I think might create a bad , unhealthy way of dealing with truly non- positive moments.
Is what a negative person would say .
But I'm better then that .
Logical positivism has to be as good as a immune system,
Then the negative person says . I bet you would like to think that.
Then I say boo Hoo.
That's me refuting myself.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 10:42:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
How do you use a Positivist criteria of meaning to justify the Positivist criteria of meaning?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 11:45:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 8:26:54 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Any refutations?

Sometimes the most rational thing a man can do is follow his heart.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 12:58:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 8:26:54 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Any refutations?

Plenty, Logical Positivism has been thoroughly refuted and almost universally rejected as having any validity at all. Logical positivism self-referentially negates itself, there is no evidence for it, and a boatload of evidence against it. The evidence against it is that the evidence itself requires evidence and it ends in an infinite regress fallacy. The goal was to bring clarity and consistency to science but its fundamental tenets could not themselves be formulated in a way that could even bring clarity of consistency to Logical Positivism..

In the end, Logical Positivism ended up being nothing more than the expression of a personal preference that makes arbitrary restrictions in order to disqualify alternatives from consideration. That;s why when you come across it today it's almost always dogmatically asserted to simply dismiss other views without discussion or consideration. It arbitrarily eliminates from serious discussion entire areas of human experience, thought, and language. It;s nothing but a Procrustean approach, arbitrarily chopping down the range of human experience until it fits the logical positivist bed.

Its primary problem is that it is self-refuting, its central proposition is that "only empirically verifiable statements have meaning", and yet, that proposition itself is not empirically verifiable, so by its own criteria, Logical Positivism is meaningless. It attempted to equate "meaningful" and "empirically verifiable", but never even came close to showing that they are in any way synonymous, the verification principle was its central tenant, but it was never clearly defined, and "meaninglessness" itself certainly isn't an observable property.

Another problem is its overemphasis on sense data as a "given" starting point of certainty. It's pretty clear that there is a complex interplay of experience and interpretation, sense data is known to be conceptually organized and "theory laden", perception and conception go hand in hand. Most fields of science today recognize the distorting effect of observer bias and structural limitations in their reliance on sense data.

Another problem is that logical positivism rejects metaphysics as meaningless while holding to an explicit metaphysics of its own in which uncritical ontological assumptions are taken to be facts. The very act of reducing all statements to statements about sense data is itself a metaphysical assertion about epistemology. As Harvey Cox said "Eventually, all these anti-metaphysical critics will have to face the contention that no one ever really escapes metaphysics, that its derogators end up hiding it, obscuring it, or doing it badly." Logical Positivism does it very badly, it is an epistemology that claims epistemology is meaningless.

Logical Positivism is implicitly an assertion of scientism, by asserting that the methods of the natural sciences may be applied to all areas of investigation, it stands as unscientific. Scientism and Logical Positivism are not conclusions of science or logic, they are faith based assertions that have no basis in logic or science.

Even if you consider Logical Positivism to be nothing more than a demarcation point between science and other areas of knowledge, it still fails miserably. Science is predominantly a matter of inductive reasoning, it fundamentally attempts to infer universal principles or "laws" from specifics, but Logical Positivism denies that universal principles are cognitively meaningful, undermining the entire enterprise of science.

Finally, Logical Positivism implicitly makes the claim that we can circumscribe all of reality in a series of statements of empirical fact, clearly an untenable position. Logical Positivism, taken at face value, is an axiom that cannot be made consistent with any axiomatic system, it is a faith based belief that denies the validity of all faith-based beliefs.
"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
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 3:56:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 10:42:51 PM, n7 wrote:
How do you use a Positivist criteria of meaning to justify the Positivist criteria of meaning?

The verification principle is a tautological definition and must be accepted prior to any type of discussion. It isn't empirical.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 4:07:28 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 12:58:19 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/20/2016 8:26:54 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Any refutations?

Plenty, Logical Positivism has been thoroughly refuted and almost universally rejected as having any validity at all. Logical positivism self-referentially negates itself, there is no evidence for it, and a boatload of evidence against it. The evidence against it is that the evidence itself requires evidence and it ends in an infinite regress fallacy. The goal was to bring clarity and consistency to science but its fundamental tenets could not themselves be formulated in a way that could even bring clarity of consistency to Logical Positivism..

In the end, Logical Positivism ended up being nothing more than the expression of a personal preference that makes arbitrary restrictions in order to disqualify alternatives from consideration. That;s why when you come across it today it's almost always dogmatically asserted to simply dismiss other views without discussion or consideration. It arbitrarily eliminates from serious discussion entire areas of human experience, thought, and language. It;s nothing but a Procrustean approach, arbitrarily chopping down the range of human experience until it fits the logical positivist bed.

Its primary problem is that it is self-refuting, its central proposition is that "only empirically verifiable statements have meaning", and yet, that proposition itself is not empirically verifiable, so by its own criteria, Logical Positivism is meaningless.
Only empirically verifiable statements *say things about the world* - the verification principle doesn't make any claims to.
It attempted to equate "meaningful" and "empirically verifiable", but never even came close to showing that they are in any way synonymous, the verification principle was its central tenant, but it was never clearly defined, and "meaninglessness" itself certainly isn't an observable property.
It was very clearly defined. If a proposition says something about the world, the world must be a certain way if the proposition is true and another way if it is false. Without such a common-sense standard, wherein can you find meaning?
Another problem is its overemphasis on sense data as a "given" starting point of certainty. It's pretty clear that there is a complex interplay of experience and interpretation, sense data is known to be conceptually organized and "theory laden", perception and conception go hand in hand. Most fields of science today recognize the distorting effect of observer bias and structural limitations in their reliance on sense data.
Where does positivism ignore this?
Another problem is that logical positivism rejects metaphysics as meaningless while holding to an explicit metaphysics of its own in which uncritical ontological assumptions are taken to be facts. The very act of reducing all statements to statements about sense data is itself a metaphysical assertion about epistemology. As Harvey Cox said "Eventually, all these anti-metaphysical critics will have to face the contention that no one ever really escapes metaphysics, that its derogators end up hiding it, obscuring it, or doing it badly." Logical Positivism does it very badly, it is an epistemology that claims epistemology is meaningless.
Can you explain how positivism makes metaphysical claims?
Logical Positivism is implicitly an assertion of scientism, by asserting that the methods of the natural sciences may be applied to all areas of investigation, it stands as unscientific. Scientism and Logical Positivism are not conclusions of science or logic, they are faith based assertions that have no basis in logic or science.

Even if you consider Logical Positivism to be nothing more than a demarcation point between science and other areas of knowledge, it still fails miserably. Science is predominantly a matter of inductive reasoning, it fundamentally attempts to infer universal principles or "laws" from specifics, but Logical Positivism denies that universal principles are cognitively meaningful, undermining the entire enterprise of science.
Define "universal principles", please.
Finally, Logical Positivism implicitly makes the claim that we can circumscribe all of reality in a series of statements of empirical fact, clearly an untenable position. Logical Positivism, taken at face value, is an axiom that cannot be made consistent with any axiomatic system, it is a faith based belief that denies the validity of all faith-based beliefs.
Most of your criticisms are restatements of "the verification principle is faith-based" without justification.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 4:17:38 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 3:56:59 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 4/20/2016 10:42:51 PM, n7 wrote:
How do you use a Positivist criteria of meaning to justify the Positivist criteria of meaning?

The verification principle is a tautological definition and must be accepted prior to any type of discussion. It isn't empirical.

And that isn't self-contradictory?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 4:22:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 4:17:38 AM, n7 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 3:56:59 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 4/20/2016 10:42:51 PM, n7 wrote:
How do you use a Positivist criteria of meaning to justify the Positivist criteria of meaning?

The verification principle is a tautological definition and must be accepted prior to any type of discussion. It isn't empirical.

And that isn't self-contradictory?

No? It isn't a statement about the world; it's a principle of meaning.

Ayer:

"Thus, while I wish the principle of verification itself be regarded, not as an empirical hypothesis, but as a definition, it is not supposed to be entirely arbitrary. It is indeed open to anyone to adopt a different criterion of meaning and so to produce an alternative definition which may very well correspond to one of the ways in which the word 'meaning' is commonly used. And if a statement satisfied such a criterion, there is, no doubt, some proper use of the word 'understanding' in which it would be capable of being understood. Nevertheless, I think that, unless it satisfied the principle of verification, it would not be capable of being understood in the sense which either scientific hypotheses or common-sense statements are habitually understood."
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 8:27:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 4:22:05 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 4/21/2016 4:17:38 AM, n7 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 3:56:59 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 4/20/2016 10:42:51 PM, n7 wrote:
How do you use a Positivist criteria of meaning to justify the Positivist criteria of meaning?

The verification principle is a tautological definition and must be accepted prior to any type of discussion. It isn't empirical.

And that isn't self-contradictory?

No? It isn't a statement about the world; it's a principle of meaning.

Ayer:

"Thus, while I wish the principle of verification itself be regarded, not as an empirical hypothesis, but as a definition, it is not supposed to be entirely arbitrary. It is indeed open to anyone to adopt a different criterion of meaning and so to produce an alternative definition which may very well correspond to one of the ways in which the word 'meaning' is commonly used. And if a statement satisfied such a criterion, there is, no doubt, some proper use of the word 'understanding' in which it would be capable of being understood. Nevertheless, I think that, unless it satisfied the principle of verification, it would not be capable of being understood in the sense which either scientific hypotheses or common-sense statements are habitually understood."

Yes it is. You're making the claim that any coherent definition of "meaning" necessarily incorporates verifiability in one sense or another (logical or empirical) and to make a claim is to make a statement about the world, as you know.

When I asked bossy what arguments he uses to justify his logical positivism, he responded with this single sentence point: "The meaning of a sentence is its means of verification."

The argument is true as far as it goes, since clearly the only way to know that a statement is true is to know what the sentence says, but it does not in any way prove that the meaning of a sentence is completely equivalent to this function. In other words, it's possible that the meaning of a sentence is its means of verification and something else.

Sorry that happened ^
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 8:41:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 8:26:54 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Any refutations?

So you are an atheist now?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 8:47:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 8:27:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2016 4:22:05 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 4/21/2016 4:17:38 AM, n7 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 3:56:59 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 4/20/2016 10:42:51 PM, n7 wrote:
How do you use a Positivist criteria of meaning to justify the Positivist criteria of meaning?

The verification principle is a tautological definition and must be accepted prior to any type of discussion. It isn't empirical.

And that isn't self-contradictory?

No? It isn't a statement about the world; it's a principle of meaning.

Ayer:

"Thus, while I wish the principle of verification itself be regarded, not as an empirical hypothesis, but as a definition, it is not supposed to be entirely arbitrary. It is indeed open to anyone to adopt a different criterion of meaning and so to produce an alternative definition which may very well correspond to one of the ways in which the word 'meaning' is commonly used. And if a statement satisfied such a criterion, there is, no doubt, some proper use of the word 'understanding' in which it would be capable of being understood. Nevertheless, I think that, unless it satisfied the principle of verification, it would not be capable of being understood in the sense which either scientific hypotheses or common-sense statements are habitually understood."

Yes it is. You're making the claim that any coherent definition of "meaning" necessarily incorporates verifiability in one sense or another (logical or empirical) and to make a claim is to make a statement about the world, as you know.
No I'm not. Where did I say that the verification principle makes a claim about the world?
When I asked bossy what arguments he uses to justify his logical positivism, he responded with this single sentence point: "The meaning of a sentence is its means of verification."
Yes.
The argument is true as far as it goes, since clearly the only way to know that a statement is true is to know what the sentence says, but it does not in any way prove that the meaning of a sentence is completely equivalent to this function. In other words, it's possible that the meaning of a sentence is its means of verification and something else.
What is an example of the "something else"?

If this is true, consider two propositions: X and Y. Under your framework, the world when X is true may be a certain way (XT), and, likewise, the world when Y is true may be a certain way (YT).

If there is something informing meaning beyond what the world looks like when the proposition is true, then it follows that XT and YT may be exactly equal, even when X and Y are radically different.

The question, then, is this: how can XT and YT be equivalent, but the meanings of X and Y be different? What sense is there positing meaning beyond what the world will be when a proposition is true? What does this "other" factor look like?
Sorry that happened ^

Likewise.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 8:49:20 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 8:41:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 4/20/2016 8:26:54 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Any refutations?

So you are an atheist now?

Spinoza was basically an atheist anyway.

I don't think he was particularly wrong, but he said nothing.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 10:45:31 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 4:07:28 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:58:19 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/20/2016 8:26:54 AM, ShabShoral wrote:

Its primary problem is that it is self-refuting, its central proposition is that "only empirically verifiable statements have meaning", and yet, that proposition itself is not empirically verifiable, so by its own criteria, Logical Positivism is meaningless.
Only empirically verifiable statements *say things about the world* - the verification principle doesn't make any claims to.

OK, but isn't Logical Positivism supposed to have implications for the practice of science and the empirical truth of other statements? If Logical Positivism's core principle doesn't say anything about the world, then it can't have any implications for science or the truth of other statements. If it has no "truth value", what exactly does it do besides nothing?

Let's go over it again.

The central proposition is that "only verifiable statements and definitions have meaning",

You have admitted that it is not itself verifiable, and for the verification principle to have meaning, the only other option is that it is a definition, but definitions don't make factual assertions about the way things are, they are either tautological or arbitrary, so they lack "truth value" and can't have any implications for the practice of science or the truth of other statements.

If the verification principle itself is not verifiable and it's not a definition, then according to Logical Positivism, the only possibility left is that it is an emotive statement that is purely a subjective matter, it is about feelings.

In the end, it is a rather un-clever way of positioning a double standard, simply a way of imposing a strict requirement upon something you don't approve of, while imposing a more lenient standard on something you do approve of, but there is no justification for the differential treatment. As I said, again, "it's nothing more than the expression of a personal preference that makes arbitrary restrictions in order to disqualify alternatives from consideration." Self-consistency is required for logical validity, but instead, it is self-refuting, nothing but faith based-dogma pretending to be logical.

It attempted to equate "meaningful" and "empirically verifiable", but never even came close to showing that they are in any way synonymous, the verification principle was its central tenant, but it was never clearly defined, and "meaninglessness" itself certainly isn't an observable property.
It was very clearly defined. If a proposition says something about the world, the world must be a certain way if the proposition is true and another way if it is false.

Well yeah, except that statement isn't even about the verification principle, it's vaguely about truth perhaps, but it does nothing to clarify or justify the claimed magical properties of the verification principle. What Logical Positivism lacks is an explanation of how "empirically verifiable" translates into "meaningful", what is the process by which something can be proven by means of experience, what does verification entail?

You LP guys just need to be a little more explicit about step two, where it says "then a miracle happens".

Without such a common-sense standard, wherein can you find meaning?

Most dogma makes the claim that it's just common sense and of course, only their position has meaning. I think the first thing they teach you at religious fundamentalism school is how to say "it isn't religion; it's just the way things are", apparently scientism school is no different than any other fundamentalism school. I think what you mean to say is, it is a common-sense "double standard".

I'd be happy to formally debate it with you, recognize though, that in a formal debate, dogmatic assertions without justification don't usually get votes, and self-refuting assertions do even worse.

Another problem is its overemphasis on sense data as a "given" starting point of certainty. It's pretty clear that there is a complex interplay of experience and interpretation, sense data is known to be conceptually organized and "theory laden", perception and conception go hand in hand. Most fields of science today recognize the distorting effect of observer bias and structural limitations in their reliance on sense data.
Where does positivism ignore this?

Only at its core. Logical Positivism claims a proposition is meaningful, and thus capable of being true or false, if and only if it is verifiable by sensory experiences. Consequently, in Logical Positivism "sensory experience" is the sole measure of truth or certainty. By equating sensory experience with truth or certainty, it ignores the fact that sensory experience is prone to bias, perceptual errors, and that it can be "theory laden" and conceptually organized, this makes experiential data a bad "starting point for certainty or truth".

Another problem is that logical positivism rejects metaphysics as meaningless while holding to an explicit metaphysics of its own in which uncritical ontological assumptions are taken to be facts. The very act of reducing all statements to statements about sense data is itself a metaphysical assertion about epistemology. As Harvey Cox said "Eventually, all these anti-metaphysical critics will have to face the contention that no one ever really escapes metaphysics, that its derogators end up hiding it, obscuring it, or doing it badly." Logical Positivism does it very badly, it is an epistemology that claims epistemology is meaningless.
Can you explain how positivism makes metaphysical claims?

In the same way all dogmatic fundamentalists make their metaphysical claims, by asserting their own metaphysical position is the only valid metaphysical position, by claiming their position isn't even metaphysical, it is just the way things are, by calling it "common sense", and insisting it is the standard by which all other position must be evaluated by.

Face it, Logical Positivism is first and foremost an epistemology, it directly speaks to the epistemological questions of knowledge, belief, and justification, so what it is fundamentally about, is in fact, metaphysics. It is a metaphysical statement that says metaphysical statements are meaningless, it is a theory of justification that has no justification. It presupposes the metaphysical positions of rationalism, reductionism, naive realism, among others, and when it appeals to "common sense", it is presupposing intuitionism.

Logical Positivism was reverse engineered from the scientific method in the first place, and science has its own metaphysical presuppositions, both ontological and epistemological. The axioms of science include reductionism, rationalism, the uniformity of nature, the belief that there is a single reality that exists objectively and independently of mind, that it is shared by all rational observers; that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation, these and other presuppositions are explicitly metaphysical.

Even Naturalism becomes a metaphysical theory when it strays beyond the methodology of science to talk of what can have meaning, as Logical Positivism does. Denying metaphysics is itself a metaphysical position that involves standing outside the practice of science and talking of its scope.

Logical Positivism is implicitly an assertion of scientism, by asserting that the methods of the natural sciences may be applied to all areas of investigation, it stands as unscientific. Scientism and Logical Positivism are not conclusions of science or logic, they are faith based assertions that have no basis in logic or science.

Continued...
"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
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 10:52:01 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 4:07:28 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:58:19 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/20/2016 8:26:54 AM, ShabShoral wrote:

...Continued

Logical Positivism is implicitly an assertion of scientism, by asserting that the methods of the natural sciences may be applied to all areas of investigation, it stands as unscientific. Scientism and Logical Positivism are not conclusions of science or logic, they are faith based assertions that have no basis in logic or science.

Even if you consider Logical Positivism to be nothing more than a demarcation point between science and other areas of knowledge, it still fails miserably. Science is predominantly a matter of inductive reasoning, it fundamentally attempts to infer universal principles or "laws" from specifics, but Logical Positivism denies that universal principles are cognitively meaningful, undermining the entire enterprise of science.
Define "universal principles", please.

Seriously? How about what we call the "laws of nature", how about you look up what the word "induction" means, and maybe read about what science is and does.

The term empirical presupposes inductive reasoning, and as Hume pointed out two hundred years before Logical Positvism was even a thing, induction cannot achieve certainty. But Logical Positivism simply ignores the problem of induction, simply elevating empiricism to the standard of truth and certainty without any logical justification, it is just declared.

What science fundamentally does is use inductive reasoning to derive general principles from specific instances, but the truth of those general principles is inferred, they can never be proven empirically, despite the insistence of Logical Positivism that it mysteriously can. Hume demonstrated the real truth of the matter that nothing can be proven by means of experience, empiricism cannot serve as a reliable basis for verificationism, and that is why Logical Positivism doesn't even try to clarify or verify its dogma, because it can't.

Finally, Logical Positivism implicitly makes the claim that we can circumscribe all of reality in a series of statements of empirical fact, clearly an untenable position. Logical Positivism, taken at face value, is an axiom that cannot be made consistent with any axiomatic system, it is a faith based belief that denies the validity of all faith-based beliefs.
Most of your criticisms are restatements of "the verification principle is faith-based" without justification.

LOL, spoken dogmatically, like a true fundamentalist, that is rich.

Here's a universal principle for you: If the only justifications you can muster for a philosophical position is "nuh uh, is not" and "I know you are but what am I", then it's probably time to take a different philosophical position.
"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
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 9:17:39 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 8:47:18 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 4/21/2016 8:27:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Yes it is. You're making the claim that any coherent definition of "meaning" necessarily incorporates verifiability in one sense or another (logical or empirical) and to make a claim is to make a statement about the world, as you know.
No I'm not. Where did I say that the verification principle makes a claim about the world?

When you suggested that it was true.

When I asked bossy what arguments he uses to justify his logical positivism, he responded with this single sentence point: "The meaning of a sentence is its means of verification."
Yes.
The argument is true as far as it goes, since clearly the only way to know that a statement is true is to know what the sentence says, but it does not in any way prove that the meaning of a sentence is completely equivalent to this function. In other words, it's possible that the meaning of a sentence is its means of verification and something else.
What is an example of the "something else"?

If this is true, consider two propositions: X and Y. Under your framework, the world when X is true may be a certain way (XT), and, likewise, the world when Y is true may be a certain way (YT).

If there is something informing meaning beyond what the world looks like when the proposition is true, then it follows that XT and YT may be exactly equal, even when X and Y are radically different.

The question, then, is this: how can XT and YT be equivalent, but the meanings of X and Y be different? What sense is there positing meaning beyond what the world will be when a proposition is true? What does this "other" factor look like?

First of all, I don't need to explain what the "other" factor might look like. You're the one who is responsible for proving that it's impossible in principle, given the assertion you're making.

Second, two different propositions can both be verified by the same evidence. For instance, take the statements "Creatures with bones exist" and "Creatures with hearts exist." These can both be proven true by the existence of a single creature, yet they don't mean the same thing, in the sense that one could be true and the other false.

Third, the assumption that if X extends beyond XT that XT and YT can in principle be equivalent is not necessarily justified. For instance, claiming that a flag extends beyond the part that sticks into the ground does not imply that two flags can be positioned at exactly the same location.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 5:58:31 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 9:17:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2016 8:47:18 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 4/21/2016 8:27:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Yes it is. You're making the claim that any coherent definition of "meaning" necessarily incorporates verifiability in one sense or another (logical or empirical) and to make a claim is to make a statement about the world, as you know.
No I'm not. Where did I say that the verification principle makes a claim about the world?

When you suggested that it was true.
Justify your claims, please.
When I asked bossy what arguments he uses to justify his logical positivism, he responded with this single sentence point: "The meaning of a sentence is its means of verification."
Yes.
The argument is true as far as it goes, since clearly the only way to know that a statement is true is to know what the sentence says, but it does not in any way prove that the meaning of a sentence is completely equivalent to this function. In other words, it's possible that the meaning of a sentence is its means of verification and something else.
What is an example of the "something else"?

If this is true, consider two propositions: X and Y. Under your framework, the world when X is true may be a certain way (XT), and, likewise, the world when Y is true may be a certain way (YT).

If there is something informing meaning beyond what the world looks like when the proposition is true, then it follows that XT and YT may be exactly equal, even when X and Y are radically different.

The question, then, is this: how can XT and YT be equivalent, but the meanings of X and Y be different? What sense is there positing meaning beyond what the world will be when a proposition is true? What does this "other" factor look like?

First of all, I don't need to explain what the "other" factor might look like. You're the one who is responsible for proving that it's impossible in principle, given the assertion you're making.
Your argument is essentially "A is not A because A could be not-A. Oh, you want me to tell you what that would look like? No, YOU'RE responsible for doing so!"
Second, two different propositions can both be verified by the same evidence. For instance, take the statements "Creatures with bones exist" and "Creatures with hearts exist." These can both be proven true by the existence of a single creature, yet they don't mean the same thing, in the sense that one could be true and the other false.
I don't think you understand this. The verification for either proposition would be the existence of a trait *of* the creature, not the totality of the creatures.
Third, the assumption that if X extends beyond XT that XT and YT can in principle be equivalent is not necessarily justified. For instance, claiming that a flag extends beyond the part that sticks into the ground does not imply that two flags can be positioned at exactly the same location.

The analogy, I'm afraid, does not work. There is nothing to extend into - there is only the world. If X and Y are not distinguishable by looking at the world but are distinguishable at all, the question is clear: what do you look at to find the distinguishing factors?
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 6:09:33 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 10:45:31 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
I was responding, but you offered to debate this - if you're willing, I'd just save my rebuttals until then.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 1:06:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 6:09:33 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 4/22/2016 10:45:31 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
I was responding, but you offered to debate this - if you're willing, I'd just save my rebuttals until then.

I'm on the road but I get back tomorrow, then I'm in.

Post what you want the resolution to be, we'll come up with terms when I get back.
"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
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 1:08:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 4:56:14 AM, YYW wrote:
Stupid people think positivism is dead. But only the stupid people.

Whoa, you are really good at that logic thingy.

Where did you get the logical principle that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, Aristotle maybe?
"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
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 11:09:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 1:06:21 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/24/2016 6:09:33 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 4/22/2016 10:45:31 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
I was responding, but you offered to debate this - if you're willing, I'd just save my rebuttals until then.

I'm on the road but I get back tomorrow, then I'm in.

Post what you want the resolution to be, we'll come up with terms when I get back.

"Logical Positivism is justifiable"?
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 12:19:24 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 11:45:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/20/2016 8:26:54 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Any refutations?

Sometimes the most rational thing a man can do is follow his heart.

Agreed.