Logical Positivist

[Dagda]

A philosopher who quite likes Logical Positivism made an interesting point the other day (no idea if it is true, never having researched the subject). Logical Positivists like evidence before certainty (hence the name), but they claim that certainty in negatives (e.g. socialism doesn’t work) needs evidence just as much as certainty in positives (socialism does work etc). What do people think of this position? Please do not quote Wiki-I am not particularly interested in what the Logical Positivists really thought about this subject.

[AlP]

I think the logical positivist would conclude that both the statements "socialism works" and "socialism does not work" are both meaningless unless they can be conclusively verified. I'm not a positivist though and it's possible I am mistaken.

[Typist]

Logical Positivists like evidence before certainty (hence the name), but they claim that certainty in negatives (e.g. socialism doesn’t work) needs evidence just as much as certainty in positives (socialism does work etc). What do people think of this position?

Makes sense to me.

[bfat]

I agree with this school of thought, especially in areas of science--come up with the theory, then prove the theory.  But certainty in negatives can be somewhat difficult, like proving that something doesn't exist.  We could say that because there has been no proof that God exists, we must assume that he/she/it does not.  Until proof of its existence is found, one must assume that it doesn't exist.  Here, however, some clever creationists have tried to use this against science (only when it suits them), talking about "missing links"  in the evolutionary chain that have never been found, and therefore do not exist, which somehow must disprove evolution (never mind the overwhelming genetic and anthropological evidence that does, in fact, prove that evolution happens).  So sometimes I guess it can come back and bite you on the ass.  Like in modern physics with the Higgs Boson particle--scientists are pretty positive it exists and they're working really really hard to find it because they need to in order to verify their theories, but the damned thing is so tiny and rare, it's nearly impossible to spot.  Still, I'd say it's a pretty good and rational perspective to take on things.

[Typist]

We could say that because there has been no proof that God exists, we must assume that he/she/it does not.  Until proof of its existence is found, one must assume that it doesn't exist.  

Yes, that seems a common way to go about it.

I guess the question that comes up here is, why?  Why must we assume anything?  Why the rush to come to a conclusion?  

Only 100 years ago we had no proof of anything beyond our galaxy. In my grandfather's youth, we were ignorant of 99% of reality.

Before Edwin Hubble, how would it have been helpful to assume, or even insist, that there was nothing beyond our galaxy?    Why not just stick with the facts, which at that time were, we didn't know what if anything was beyond our galaxy?

[bfat]

Yes, that seems a common way to go about it.

I guess the question that comes up here is, why?  Why must we assume anything?  Why the rush to come to a conclusion?  

Only 100 years ago we had no proof of anything beyond our galaxy. In my grandfather's youth, we were ignorant of 99% of reality.

Before Edwin Hubble, how would it have been helpful to assume, or even insist, that there was nothing beyond our galaxy?    Why not just stick with the facts, which at that time were, we didn't know what if anything was beyond our galaxy?

Good point.  I think it's hasty to make assumptions about philosophical questions, but in science, positivism/rationalism makes the most sense and is the only way to get trustworthy results.  Scientists have always known that there is more beyond their understanding.  This makes them ask questions, which lead to theories, which can then be tested by Logical positivism.  But philosophy and religion are different.  I think that rationally, most religions are completely ridiculous.  But I don't presume to know for sure that there's no other force in the universe, or that things don't exist outside my sphere of knowledge about the galaxy, etc.  I guess that's why I'm an agnostic (though I suppose I'm technically an atheist too because I don't believe in a God--or gods--in the way that any theistic religion proposes).

[AlP]

I think positivism goes too far. Science does not need positivism to be useful. The claims are so strong. I wouldn't want to have to defend the positivist position.

As for rationalism, that is, to my mind, incompatible with science and positivism. It's almost the exact opposite.

[Dagda]

But philosophy and religion are differennt.

I disagree. Philosophy and religion are trying to find the same answer as science-the universal theory. As such all three subjects should be judged by the same criteria-if the theory does not hold up under the gaze of logical positivism then it should not be claimed that it is a certainty-at the most we can say we believe that this theory is correct and that evidence may be out there which can prove this belief.

[bfat]

I think positivism goes too far. Science does not need positivism to be useful. The claims are so strong. I wouldn't want to have to defend the positivist position.

As for rationalism, that is, to my mind, incompatible with science and positivism. It's almost the exact opposite.

Logical Positivism is also known as "rational empiricism"--it's using empirical data to support rational claims.  My understanding was that they're pretty much the same thing... but I could be wrong.  I haven't really studied the subject.

[Dagda]

Ah but what is rational? What I think is rational may be completely ludicrous to you, so who decides the definition of rationality from which logical positivism is to be based?

[bfat]

I guess anything "rational" involves some kind of subjective judgment or reasoning.  But when I was reading about the history/definition of logical positivism, it said that it evolved from rationalism, combining it with empiricism, which made it a bit stricter.  It's true though, a crazy person's rationalism is still crazy.  So "empirical rationalism" has to be based on a cultural consensus.  But if you're whole culture is crazy... etc.  So logical positivism is fully empirical, requiring no subjectivity?

Still, I think it's a good thing that science requires repeatable, demonstrable proof.  For me, though, things get fuzzier when you get into philosophy because some of the concepts, by their nature, cannot be tested.  Therefore, I wouldn't claim to be certain about any of them, but that doesn't mean I don't stay open to the possibility that they are true (or false).  Here, I think, is where rationality comes into play.  Rationally, I don't think there are such things as unicorns, even though I have no proof of their non-existence (same with God).  But rationally, I'd also say it's possible that there are aspects of the universe that exist but haven't yet been proven or documented.

[i_am_i]

We could say that because there has been no proof that God exists, we must assume that he/she/it does not.  Until proof of its existence is found, one must assume that it doesn't exist.

I think that's going about it backwards, though. There is ample proof to support the assertion that God is a human invention and nothing more. Having arrived at that conclusion then everything having to do with the supposed existence of a supernatural intelligence collapses, including the ontological argument and all philosophical debate on the subject.

In other words, we may as well be arguing about the existence of unicorns or flying horses.

[elliebean]

Careful, or you might find that you are.
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=59090#p59090

[Typist]

Philosophy and religion are trying to find the same answer as science-the universal theory.

Yea, I can vote for this.  

You know, none of us are complete.   We all have talents in some directions, weaknesses in others.   Nobody has the full range of human talents.

It seems mechanically oriented people look to science in their search, because it's a tool their mind feels comfortable with.   Poetically minded people look to religion in their search, for the same reason.    Argument oriented people on all sides then proceed to make the whole thing about which is best.   To each, their own.

All that aside, the interesting part imho is, what is everybody searching for, each in their own way?

[Typist]

Careful, or you might find that you are.
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=59090#p59090 :-)