[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 16 KB, 226x346, 41OVAdT35sL._SL500_SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11560518 No.11560518 [Reply] [Original]

Why are the majority of scientists logical positivists, when positivism has been refuted as a valid philosophy?

>> No.11560571

>philosophy
not science or math

>> No.11560598

>>11560518
Because it's a simple to understand philosophy that also makes you comfortable of the relevancy, importance and hegemonial status you have from practicing science.

>> No.11560602

>>11560518
positivism narrowly conceived is stupid but rejecting it altogether is equally stupid and Comte is a great writer, and people read him a lot, at least here in France

>> No.11560608

it's a good starting point

>> No.11560708

>>11560518

It hasn't been refuted. It is possible that so-called metaphysical statements are all meaningless or ungrounded by some external standard. This strikes most people as unlikely, but that is not a refutation. Most scientists are probably logical positivists due to cultural/sociological effects that will change over time and change the mass of opinion with it.

>> No.11560722

>>11560518
What makes you think a majority of scientists are logical positivists?

>> No.11560766

>>11560518
What makes more scientific advances, Logical Positivism, or whatever surpassed Logical Positivism?

>> No.11560783

>>11560518
They don’t study philosophy

>> No.11560787

>>11560766
I hope you realize you are a retard, but I doubt you are smart enough for even that

>> No.11560795

>>11560787
I am awed by your impeccable logic and flawless reasoning

>> No.11560811

>>11560795
It’s easy to impress a retard

>> No.11560820

>>11560787
>>11560811
>>11560518
No-one can demonstrate anything beyond solipsism, to indulge this is stupid

>> No.11560880

>>11560518
by definition logical positivism is
>a form of positivism, developed by members of the Vienna Circle, which considers that the only meaningful philosophical problems are those which can be solved by logical analysis.

according to google at least.

by definition a scientist must believe that he can only know what he can prove with logic and the scientific method.

its not much of a stretch to be a logical positivist, because what makes a question meaningful is its answer not the question. if you cant answer a question then the question itself is not meaningful.example:if a god exists then that's meaningful, if a god doesn't exist that is meaningful but since scientists cant know whether a god exists using logic and the scientific method. it has no effect making it meaningless.

>> No.11560889

>>11560518
how has logical positivism been refuted

>> No.11560902

>>11560880
Yeah but you realize how stupid that is given deities are as human a thought as any.

Schlick himself never left the Protestant Church. The work was Incomplete when the circle ended

>> No.11560905

>>11560889
Seriously? You can’t think of any question that science can’t answer but Obviosuly has an answer?

>> No.11560906

philosophy is not science, it is semantics

>> No.11560911

>>11560518
>positivism has been refuted as a valid philosophy
???

>> No.11560930

>>11560518
Positivist thinking is omnipresent on modern society. It's going to take a while to it to disappear, if it ever does disappear.

>> No.11560939

>>11560905
name a single one

>> No.11560947

>>11560518
Positivism is correct. Cry more philosotards

>> No.11561123

>>11560947
pretty much

>> No.11561162

>>11560518
Because scientists aren't philosophers now.

>> No.11561476

>>11560889
>>11560906
>>11560911
>>11560947
>>11561123
Positivism has been absolutely destroyed by Popper, Quine, and Kuhn, among others.

>> No.11561748

>>11560820
>No one can make claims outside of one's self
>That in itself is a claim outside one's self
>solipsism owned

>> No.11561801

>>11560602
Based frogs. Despite being faggots, I would become a francofile if ye decided to wipe the Anglonex-Saxonex out

>> No.11561809

>>11560518
what do you mean when you say the majority of scientists are logical positivists?
I don't think the majority of scientists have read the writings of the vienna circle.
How would science be different if most scientists weren't "logical positivists"?

>> No.11561814

>>11561801
cringe. maybe go to /int/ suck french flag posters off even harder.

>> No.11561831

>>11561476
brainlet

>> No.11562058

>>11561476
The Popper argument that you can't verify, you can only falsify, fails on close examination. A falsification is simply a verification of the negation.

>> No.11563391

>>11560787
>>11560811

Nice arguments

>> No.11563528

>>11562058
I’m a brianlet so forgive me
>A falsification is simply a verification of the negation.
This makes sense to me but isn’t there a z fundamental difference between claiming something is true and claiming it’s false? Like, assume the Earth revolves around the Sun. We could propose a theory that George over there is responsible. But then George dies and the earth continues to revolve. Didn’t we prove that George isn’t the cause? I guess you are saying that because we verified that something isn’t the cause we can also verify the cause? Fuck I’m not equipped to handle this.

>> No.11563557

>>11563528
Different person, you were on the right track. An idea is falsifiable if it can be proven wrong. To use your example, the statement that George is responsible for the earth revolving around the sun is falsifiable because if George dies and the earth continues to revolve then that theory is proven wrong.

>> No.11563637

>>11563557
Thanks for the reply! So the statement that falsification is verification of the negation misses the point that we can only prove trivial things (e.g. geometry) but we can falsify complex things (George theory). Am I right on that? I know my terms trivial and complex are ill defined.

>> No.11563771

>>11563637
It's not matter of complexity but rather the nature of the field. In science, we use empiricism so claims must be falsifiable. However in something like math, we can arrive at truth deductively.

>> No.11563798

>>11561831
Positivism has been refuted
>>11562058
That is not poppers argument against positivism.

>> No.11563803

>>11563637
other anon has the right idea. its about the problem of justifying induction. no matter what you do, you cant quite escape the fact that any conclusion you draw based on observations you make about the world is going to be inductive. the problem is that any conditional statement made using a premise that relies on the truth of an observation will have a conclusion that relies on that observation. so if an evil demon is deceiving you then your premise is flawed and you must concede that your conclusion is likewise flawed. popper suggested that we sidestep this problem by judging the merit of a theory based on how easily it can be "falsified" because if a bunch of people are trying and failing to show that you're wrong, then you as of this instance, you are more right than others

>> No.11563813

>>11560518
One doesn't have to be convinced of the ultimateness of a truth to recognize it as basically reliably true thusfar. It can be a provisional truth. Get over yourself. They're just disgusted that you can't be bothered to learn applicable skills for real things and think "U cant know nuffin" is a contribution to anything.

>> No.11564123

>>11560787
based. he actually thought he made a good argument lmao. i can read his mind, its hilarious

>> No.11564202

>>11560722
Do you think most scientists would take an untestable theory seriously? I don't think they would, hence most scientists are logical positivists.

>> No.11564230

>>11561809
>"logical positivists"
At least Google a summary of what a logical positivist is instead of putting it in scare quotes and revealing your ignorance. It's someone who believes only verifiable ideas are meaningful. Is it really controversial to say that most scientists hold that attitude?

>> No.11564292
File: 49 KB, 590x375, 46-tonnes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11564292

I am a scientist, and I also am a logical positivist. Even mathematics are ultimately about falsifiability, as implied by Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Apart from group-fapping with fellow faggot post-modern philosophers, do you propose something that actually works better than the scientific method?

>> No.11564294

>>11560518
Based on Huemer-pilled

>> No.11564297

>>11561476
i like feyerabend more

>> No.11564320

>>11560571
go back to plebbit where things get deleted when they make you feel uncomfortable faggot

>> No.11565261

>>11564230
logical positivism refers to a specific philosophical school. It's not just your epic le schience is stoopid strawman.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
>John Passmore found logical positivism to be "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes".[46]

I don't think you have any real thoughts about this. You probably read the two sentence summary of logical positivism yesterday, how it's not taken seriously in academic philosophy anymore and put that together with it being used as a strawman by some other butthurt anti-science pseud.

>> No.11565282

>>11564202
I take all untestable theories extremely seriously and live my life as if they were true. Unfortunately to the untrained philosopher this appears as if I have completely dismissed them, but a wise man will see through the illusion.

>> No.11565341

This thread is so unbelievably bad...

A cursory idea of what people like Hume or Kant where writing about 300 years ago couldn't hurt some of you.

>> No.11565349

>>11565341
Hume was a dopey hack.

>> No.11565354

>>11564292
>Even mathematics are ultimately about falsifiability, as implied by Godel's incompleteness theorems
It's actually the opposite. GIC touches on the importance of fundamentally falsifiable components to any formal system that uses reason.

This necessity of axioms is problematic to the notion of logical positivism, as it is in-itself unfalsifiable. Dismissal of propositions in this manner can only occur with certainty when dealing with axioms, all other dismissals can only be posited as temporary intermission, as the dismissal is centered in the lack of ability to make observations and is not a guarantee or prediction that none exist.

You'd know all of this if you actually bothered to study logic.

>> No.11565360

>>11565354
GIC touches on the importance of fundamentally unfalsifiable* components

>> No.11565367

>>11564292
>>11565354
>>11565360
Gödel's theorem is a statement that it is impossible to predict the infinite time behavior of a computer program. That's all.

>> No.11565425

>>11565367
1.) There are two theorems.
2.) They are about consistent axiomatic formal systems that are capable of performing arithmetic, and the fact that it is impossible to have a complete system that meets those requirements.

They are theorems of logic in a broad sense, not computability theory.

>> No.11565444

>>11565425
Are you blind, dense, or have you just not read godel? You have no idea what you're talking about.

>> No.11565467
File: 9 KB, 247x204, apu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11565467

>>11565444
https://www.jamesrmeyer.com/pdfs/godel-original-english.pdf

Please feel free to cite this free resource to prove your claim.