logical positivism

[coastie]

Can anyone here explain logical positivism in terms that a layman can understand?

All of the definitions I've found in philosophy text books and dictionaries, have been little help without the aide of a philosophy instructor.

Thanks

Zach

 

[Philosoft]

Basically, logical positivism promotes the primacy of observation as a source of knowledge. Relatedly, LP considers metaphysics and intuition empirically worthless.

 

[coastie]

In your opinion, what (if any) are some of the problems with this philosphy?

 

[Brimshack]

One way of thinking about it might be to say that the meaning of language can be reduced to it's truth functions. So, your statements can only meaningful to the degree that they can be meaningfully tested.

What are the problems with this? Well, according to this flipping somebody the bird shouldn't mean anything at all.

Broad strokes I know, but that's how I tend to think about it.

 

[coastie]

So basically, without observation or experience, knowledge is without value? Am I thinking to broad here?

 

[Brimshack]

Mmm…, that just doesn't sound like the same issue. I don't really see a contrast between observation and experience and knowledge, etc.

It's a question of deciding how important information is to communication. So, let's say you and I are having a conversation about whether or not God exists. In that context I find positivism useful, because it essentially says that whatever claims either of us make we have to understand, at least in principle, what it would take to confirm or deny the truth of our claims. If that isn't clear, then the statements in question are meaningless to the positivist. Thus to take a statement like "God Exists" a positivist (Anthony Flew in particular) would say that the statement is neither true nor false if there are no specific grounds on which we could distinguish how the world would be different if this were true as opposed to false. If we can neither verify nor falsify, then a positivist would say that there is nothing to debate, that the statement is literally wityhout any meaning.

I think positivism is useful when you are debating something, which is to say when you are trying to decide whether or not a given proposition is true. With positivism you don't let people get by with emotive points, poetry, or figurative language. When you allow such approaches into a debate you can't pin anybody down, because each side can always evade the others' points. So, positivism is a good way to ensure that you really have something worth debating.

On the other hand, as a total theory of meaning it fails, because there is a great deal of speech that occurs outside the range of truth functions (waving, threatening, pleading, promising, etc.) all these things have nothing to do with truth, but they are very meaningful. These things also take place at the same time one is arguing. So, even if our goal is to establish whether or not a proposition (like "God exists") is true, we are still interacting as people. We still get mad at some things, make friendly gestures at others, allude to interpersonal issues, etc.

Positivism takes one dimension of meaning (the one most relevant to logic) and tries to make it a total paradigm of meaning. It's useful, but it's useful in much the same sense that a map projection is useful even though it distorts the actual ground in some sense. You distort relative size of continents in order to preserve their shape, or visa versa. With logical positivism you ignore emotive communication in order to focus on literal description.

 

[coastie]

1. So logical positivism cuts through the "fat" more or less?

2. By doing so, is the broader picture neglected or just the more trivial parts?

(edit: I see how #2 is subjective, I answered my own question, unless you are inclined to answer anyway)

3. Would this eliminate preconceived notions, altogether, in the context of a debate?

 

[Brimshack]

1) Well that's a metaphor that a positivist might use, although use of such metaphors isn't really in keeping with the spirit of logical positivism.

2) Oh I always like to answer anyway. It depends on which broader picture. If you are trying to understand the total qualities of a communication system, then it misses the braoder picture, but if you are trying to determine the truth value of a specific proposition it can help you eliminate a lot of distractions.

3) Not necessarily. People bring whatever assumptions that make into a debate one way or another. there is no way to prevent that, and it isn't necessarily a problem. Those are your starting points. It may be that using such a method could help people to re-assess preconcieved notions, but I wouldn't claim that it vanquishes them altogether. And a good logical positivist might suggest that preconceived notions might be a bit of a vague concept to begin with.

 

[foolsparade]

Hi coastie! The most basic way I can explain LP is that any intellectual inquiry {such as the belief in God} should be held to the same standards as scientific investigation. It doesn't nesessarily need to be proven, but at least be able to be tested. If I had to argu against logical positivism, it would be that this "verification" process is in itself unverifiable.

Ludwig Wittgenstein influenced logical positivism to some degree. He stated that logic is neccessary but not sufficient to describe reality. He developed {the picture theory of language} When we use words to describe something, this is in effect a picture or photo or painting, but this painting is a imperfect and incomplete depiction of reality.

 

[coastie]

1. I like a good paradox.

2. So it's subjective?

3. So basically you are eliminating unobservable aspects of a debate (such as the argument in regards to whether or not God exists "I know because I feel Him")

For the positivist, would that also include things like strategy since that is largely based on speculation and intuition?

 

[Philosoft]

2. So it's subjective?

Actually, the positivist would value objectivity.

3. So basically you are eliminating unobservable aspects of a debate (such as the argument in regards to whether or not God exists "I know because I feel Him")

Not all. I think the positivist would consider axioms and deductive arguments valid.

For the positivist, would that also include things like strategy since that is largely based on speculation and intuition?

Not necessarily. A strategy is a plan intended to accomplish a goal. Nothing in there that requires or suggests the use of speculation or intuition.

 

[coastie]

Actually, the positivist would value objectivity.

I meant the question was subjective not LP.

Not all. I think the positivist would consider axioms and deductive arguments valid.

Not necessarily. A strategy is a plan intended to accomplish a goal. Nothing in there that requires or suggests the use of speculation or intuition.

I don't know, it sounds to me that I'm getting two different opinions here, because I thought I was just coming around to understand this and then every concept I bounced off of everyone has turned out incorrect. I'm seeing some incosistencies somewhere.

 

[Philosoft]

I don't know, it sounds to me that I'm getting two different opinions here, because I thought I was just coming around to understand this and then every concept I bounced off of everyone has turned out incorrect. I'm seeing some incosistencies somewhere.

Well, the logical positivist does not deny that we have to use our brains, nor that our neural processes are unique to us. Thus, things that are true by definition, or axiomatic, or deductively true, while not strictly observable, are acceptable as evidential sources. Now, I'm no expert on logical positivism. However, as strict logical positivists are bound to be rare (heck, pure logical positivism is probably philosophically unworkable), I don't think one's going to show up to set me straight. So, I do my best.

 

[coastie]

Well, the logical positivist does not deny that we have to use our brains, nor that our neural processes are unique to us. Thus, things that are true by definition, or axiomatic, or deductively true, while not strictly observable, are acceptable as evidential sources. Now, I'm no expert on logical positivism. However, as strict logical positivists are bound to be rare (heck, pure logical positivism is probably philosophically unworkable), I don't think one's going to show up to set me straight. So, I do my best.

How would a logical positivist eliminate arguments since they can be reconciled by excusing them as deriving from unique nueral make-up?

I thought I was just starting to understand this, now you threw me off.

Maybe what's throwing me off here is the definition in the Philosophy dictionary that says that LP basically eliminates unobservable points presented as fact.

That's why the argument "God is real because I feel him," seems to me to be irreconcilable to an LP. Is the whole idea based on eliminating points without definition or assigned meaning like "what exactly does 'feeling God' entail?" with "feeling God" being the prase with which no meaning is officially assigned?

I really don't know how I can be so far off? Am I reading this dictionary explaination incorrectly?

I am not educated in philosophy, so I'm just a baby to ideas like these.

 

[Philosoft]

How would a logical positivist eliminate arguments since they can be reconciled by excusing them as deriving from unique nueral make-up?

I'm not sure I understand. Can you give an example?

I thought I was just starting to understand this, now you threw me off.

Heh. I see I'm not losing my touch.

Maybe what's throwing me off here is the definition in the Philosophy dictionary that says that LP basically eliminates unobservable points presented as fact.

Probably "unobservable points" is far too general a term.

That's why the argument "God is real because I feel him," seems to me to be irreconcilable to an LP. Is the whole idea based on eliminating points without definition or assigned meaning like "what exactly does 'feeling God' entail?" with "feeling God" being the prase with which no meaning is officially assigned?

Yes, assertions like, "I feel X is true" or "I believe in the truth of X" are empirically worthless and are rejected by LP.

I really don't know how I can be so far off? Am I reading this dictionary explaination incorrectly?

Maybe you're focusing too much on the wording of the definition. Let me give you some examples of "unobservable points" that would be allowable under LP.

~A bachelor is an unmarried man. [definitively true]

~A thing cannot both exist and not exist. [axiomatically true]

~Philosoft is mortal. [deductively true]

Do you see how these examples differ from, "God is real because I feel him."?

I am not educated in philosophy, so I'm just a baby to ideas like these.

Heh. I'm not a philosopher in real life, I just play one on the internet.

 

[Brimshack]

Well let me take another crack at it. As I recall, some logical positivists divde statements up into 2 classes:

Those that are true by definition

and

Those that assert an observable fact (and no this doesn't necessarily mean that you have to literally see it, just that the assertion can be related to some sensible phenomenon which can be used to verify/falsify the proposition. Thus gravity may not be something we can see, but assertions about gravity can still be tested by examining the behavior of objects affected by it.)

So, the first type of statement (those that are true by definition) are necessary to organize the second type (those that assert something factual). In a sense the first are metalinguistic in that they really take our language as the objects of description, and help us to refine our language in order to better describe the object world. I think a LP would still say that the first set of statements must be evaluated in terms of it's contribution to the second set. So, while it would be an oversimplification to say that LPs throw out ALL staments about non-observable phenomena, it would be fair to say that they do hold observability up as the ultimate criterion of meaning.

 

[coastie]

So, while it would be an oversimplification to say that LPs throw out ALL staments about non-observable phenomena, it would be fair to say that they do hold observability up as the ultimate criterion of meaning.

And the light just clicked on.

So now I'm trying to apply this to a conversation on apologetics. How would this put the person defending the existence of God at a disadvantage (whether it is a perceived or real disadvantage)?

ref: C.S. Lewis-G.E.M. Anscombe naturalism debate

 

[Brimshack]

Well it would force the individual in question to ensure that all his statements about God had observable implications. This would mean that many of the qualifications commonly used to answer criticisms would be viewed as non-productive. Whether or not this actually puts a believer at a disadvantage depends on the outcome of many of the arguments in question. But for example:

Christian asserts that God is good.
Unbeliever says: Oh yeah what about this.
Christian says, but you can't judge God's morlaity by human standards.

From an LP point of view the Christian in this example has just cancelled his own proposition by denying its empirical implications. If the Christian can show that there are at least some implications that do obtain, or that the alleged badness isn't really, then he's still got an argument, but if he simply denies that one can assess the moral qualities of God so as to say he is not good, then an LP would say that means he can't say that Goid is good either. That's an argument I've used many times, and it is to some degree borrowed from LP thought.