Logical Positivism

[Hazard]

Logical Positivism is defined by Merriam Webster to be "a 20th century philosophical movement that holds characteristically that all meaningful statements are either analytic or conclusively verifiable or at least confirmable by observation and experiment and that metaphysical theories are therefore strictly meaningless"

Isn't "metaphysical theories are therefore strictly meaningless" a contradiction to the rest of the definition?

Jordan

[Robert Campbell]

Jordan,

The Logical Positivists thought that statements that were neither analytic nor synthetic were metaphysical.

And only analytic or synthetic statements could be meaningful.

Of course, the statement that only analytic or synthetic statements can be meaningful is itself ... neither analytic nor synthetic.

Maybe you had this self-referential inconsistency in mind?

Robert Campbell

[Flagg]

I'd love to see a Logical Positivist account for the uniformity of nature. I've been harping the New Atheists about this for a long time.

[Michelle]

I'd love to see a Logical Positivist account for the uniformity of nature. I've been harping the New Atheists about this for a long time.

What's to account for?

This post sounds creepily like someone trying to sneak creationism in through the back window.

[Xray]

I'd love to see a Logical Positivist account for the uniformity of nature. I've been harping the New Atheists about this for a long time.

What's to account for?

This post sounds creepily like someone trying to sneak creationism in through the back window.

Suppose this poster is a believer in transcendence (subcategory creationist, but I'm not at all sure if that is the case), this should make for a compelling debate here on a forum mainly composed of agnostics and atheists.

I would like to ask Flagg first what exactly he/she means by "New Atheists" and the "uniformity of nature".

Flagg btw made an interesting post on free will when introducing himself/herself at OL, offering illustrative examples to discuss.

The ensuing controversial discussion was very interesting too:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...amp;#entry60113

Edited July 8, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Logical Positivism is defined by Merriam Webster to be "a 20th century philosophical movement that holds characteristically that all meaningful statements are either analytic or conclusively verifiable or at least confirmable by observation and experiment and that metaphysical theories are therefore strictly meaningless"

Isn't "metaphysical theories are therefore strictly meaningless" a contradiction to the rest of the definition?

Jordan

What do you think is meant by "metaphysics" here?

And what is a "meaningful" statement?

Edited July 8, 2009 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

Logical Positivism is defined by Merriam Webster to be "a 20th century philosophical movement that holds characteristically that all meaningful statements are either analytic or conclusively verifiable or at least confirmable by observation and experiment and that metaphysical theories are therefore strictly meaningless"

Isn't "metaphysical theories are therefore strictly meaningless" a contradiction to the rest of the definition?

Jordan

That later is a meta-theoretical assertion and does not refer to itself.

Meaningful statement about the world are convention statements or statements of fact (about the world). Statements about statements do not count.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michelle]

I'd love to see a Logical Positivist account for the uniformity of nature. I've been harping the New Atheists about this for a long time.

What's to account for?

This post sounds creepily like someone trying to sneak creationism in through the back window.

Suppose this poster is a believer in transcendence (subcategory creationist, but I'm not at all sure if that is the case), this should make for a compelling debate here on a forum mainly composed of agnostics and atheists.

I would like to ask Flagg first what exactly he/she means by "New Atheists" and the "uniformity of nature".

Flagg btw made an interesting post on free will when introducing himself/herself at OL, offering illustrative examples to discuss.

The ensuing controversial discussion was very interesting too:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...amp;#entry60113

I would assume he means the principle of the uniformity of nature.

As to "New Atheists," that's what the religious mystics are calling loud idiots like Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens who have all become vehement anti-religion activists in the last several years. I suppose this fellow means people who adopt these same arguments as the "New Atheists."

I can't tell what is "new" about them beyond the seemingly shared premise that the world would be all sunshine and bubbles if religion didn't exist, though.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Michelle R

[kiaer.ts]

I'd love to see a Logical Positivist account for the uniformity of nature. I've been harping the New Atheists about this for a long time.

What's to account for?

This post sounds creepily like someone trying to sneak creationism in through the back window.

Suppose this poster is a believer in transcendence (subcategory creationist, but I'm not at all sure if that is the case), this should make for a compelling debate here on a forum mainly composed of agnostics and atheists.

I would like to ask Flagg first what exactly he/she means by "New Atheists" and the "uniformity of nature".

Flagg btw made an interesting post on free will when introducing himself/herself at OL, offering illustrative examples to discuss.

The ensuing controversial discussion was very interesting too:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...amp;#entry60113

I would assume he means the principle of the uniformity of nature.

As to "New Atheists," that's what the religious mystics are calling loud idiots like Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens who have all become vehement anti-religion activists in the last several years. I suppose this fellow means people who adopt these same arguments as the "New Atheists."

I can't tell what is "new" about them beyond the seemingly shared premise that the world would be all sunshine and bubbles if religion didn't exist, though.

Michelle, it's not fair to class Hitchens with Dawkins, even if the Christians do. Hitchens calls the self-appellation brights "cringe-making" (i.e., embarrassing) and he doesn't think atheism alone is any virtue. Did you read his god is not great? Did you watch the three hour interview with him on Book TV's In Depth? You will not be bored, rather fascinated. People like Hitchens and Palin need to be judged on their own merits, not on what slanders have been made about them.

[Michelle]

I'd love to see a Logical Positivist account for the uniformity of nature. I've been harping the New Atheists about this for a long time.

What's to account for?

This post sounds creepily like someone trying to sneak creationism in through the back window.

Suppose this poster is a believer in transcendence (subcategory creationist, but I'm not at all sure if that is the case), this should make for a compelling debate here on a forum mainly composed of agnostics and atheists.

I would like to ask Flagg first what exactly he/she means by "New Atheists" and the "uniformity of nature".

Flagg btw made an interesting post on free will when introducing himself/herself at OL, offering illustrative examples to discuss.

The ensuing controversial discussion was very interesting too:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...amp;#entry60113

I would assume he means the principle of the uniformity of nature.

As to "New Atheists," that's what the religious mystics are calling loud idiots like Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens who have all become vehement anti-religion activists in the last several years. I suppose this fellow means people who adopt these same arguments as the "New Atheists."

I can't tell what is "new" about them beyond the seemingly shared premise that the world would be all sunshine and bubbles if religion didn't exist, though.

Michelle, it's not fair to class Hitchens with Dawkins, even if the Christians do. Hitchens calls the self-appellation brights "cringe-making" (i.e., embarrassing) and he doesn't think atheism alone is any virtue. Did you read his god is not great? Did you watch the three hour interview with him on Book TV's In Depth? You will not be bored, rather fascinated. People like Hitchens and Palin need to be judged on their own merits, not on what slanders have been made about them.

Nevertheless, the Christians consider him a "New Atheist."

I've watched short interviews here and there, and was never impressed with what I saw. He left a bad taste in my mouth.

Name one truly insightful point he makes about religion, and I'll purchase and read his book. I have no desire to read another tome whining about the evils of religion.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Michelle R

[Selene]

Ted/Michelle:

Hitchens is an excellent debater. Ted is correct about judging him by his actions and words, which I thought was the baseline or default position for all of us,

Hitchens is vehemently aware of the deadly dangers of Islamic fascism and the current spread of that faith.

He submitted to water boarding in order to be able to comment cogently about it.

His Cspan debate with the indian dude was excellent. Plus he has an excellent wit. He drinks openly and starts early in the day, lol.

Never fall in love or lust with a picky eater or a preachy teetotaler!

Adam

[Michelle]

Hitchens is an excellent debater. Ted is correct about judging him by his actions and words, which I thought was the baseline or default position for all of us

I've listened to the guy. It probably didn't help that in one of the clips I listened to he was snootily talking about his admiration for Karl Marx.

Look, I'm not denying the guy is witty. His attitude, however, irritates me, and everything I've heard him say and everything I've read about him (usually not criticizing him either, mind'), with the exception of him voluntarily undergoing waterboarding (which I have praised him for before), has either left me flat or made me actively dislike him more.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Michelle R

[Selene]

Ok. Fair enough.

I have always been able to tolerate the snooty and snotty British wit and debate style.

Adam

[Michelle]

Maybe I should make myself clear. I have no interest in reading any of his political screeds, and I am very wary about what he has to say about religion (although, as I told Ted, if he makes even one insightful point, I'll read his book on the subject), but I have considered getting his book on Orwell.

And I will say that I DO like Dawkins when he isn't whining about religion. He should stick to speaking about science. His anti-religious arguments are usually embarrassing, and his understanding of religious ideas is simplistic.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Michelle R

[Michelle]

Has anyone here read Daniel Dennett's book on religion yet?

[Xray]

[Michelle]:

And I will say that I DO like Dawkins when he isn't whining about religion. He should stick to speaking about science. His anti-religious arguments are usually embarrassing, and his understanding of religious ideas is simplistic.

Dawkins is of the opinion that there is an about "90 per cent" probability of there being no god.

Ridiculous. How can one make any such scientific calculations about a "god", which can be no empiric object of scientific study?

Edited July 9, 2009 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

Has anyone here read Daniel Dennett's book on religion yet?

Title please? D. Dennett has written many books.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michelle]

Has anyone here read Daniel Dennett's book on religion yet?

Title please? D. Dennett has written many books.

Ba'al Chatzaf

As far as I am aware, however, he has only written one book directly addressing the subject of religion.

As to the title:

"Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon"

[Robert Campbell]

I'd love to see a Logical Positivist account for the uniformity of nature. I've been harping the New Atheists about this for a long time.

Flagg,

Any claim about the uniformity of nature would be a metaphysical statement, from a Logical Positivist's standpoint. Therefore he or she wouldn't think there was anything to account for.

I'm still not sure what a New Atheist is. If the appellation covers Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett—in which case I have to wonder about the "New" part—none of these gentlemen is a Logical Positivist.

There aren't a whole lot of Logical Positivists left, anywhere in the world. Key parts of the Logical Positivist program could never be made to work. At one time, Bart Kosko (fuzzy set theory promoter, libertarian) was a Logical Positivist, though I don't know whether he remained one. In academic philosophy of science, Bas van Fraassen is about as close as anyone gets to Logical Positivism nowadays.

Robert Campbell

[BaalChatzaf]

I'd love to see a Logical Positivist account for the uniformity of nature. I've been harping the New Atheists about this for a long time.

The uniformity of nature cannot be proved or accounted for. It is assumed. Without the assumption of uniformity there can be no science based on universally quantified postulates.

There is no way empirically establish the uniformity nature because no one can visit every place in the cosmos and test the laws of physics empirically. So it must be assumed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

I'd love to see a Logical Positivist account for the uniformity of nature. I've been harping the New Atheists about this for a long time.

The uniformity of nature cannot be proved or accounted for. It is assumed. Without the assumption of uniformity there can be no science based on universally quantified postulates.

There is no way empirically establish the uniformity nature because no one can visit every place in the cosmos and test the laws of physics empirically. So it must be assumed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The four forces work the same everywhere we can look, which is a sphere some 13.5 billion light years across. Let me know when you find a star with an aberrant spectrography. What more proof of the uniformity of nature do you want?

[BaalChatzaf]

The four forces work the same everywhere we can look, which is a sphere some 13.5 billion light years across. Let me know when you find a star with an aberrant spectrography. What more proof of the uniformity of nature do you want?

We have not looked everywhere. Since each second light that has never reached us before finally reaches us, as the cosmos expands. We have not seen everything so we cannot assert the uniformity of nature on empirical grounds. There is just too much cosmos for us to examine in detail in the limited time we have. We assume uniformity since science based on general laws is impossible without uniformity. Uniformity is not a priori necessary, since a consistent set of laws which is not uniform can exist. Nor is uniformity given to us empirically, for the reasons stated. We simply have to assume it to do science based on universally quantified postulates.

And we have not (yet) found a fact to contradict uniformity but that does not mean there is no such fact. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Keep in mind that until the middle of the 19th century no fact contradicting Newton's law of gravitation was observed. Then lo!, it was observed. When telescopes with sufficient resolution were finally built, the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury counter indicated Newton's law of gravitation, which is only good as a first order approximation.

When we have observed ALL the facts and the evidence shows uniformity of the laws of nature we may conclude they are uniform. Please write as soon as we have observe ALL the facts there are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

The four forces work the same everywhere we can look, which is a sphere some 13.5 billion light years across. Let me know when you find a star with an aberrant spectrography. What more proof of the uniformity of nature do you want?

We have not looked everywhere. Since each second light that has never reached us before finally reaches us, as the cosmos expands. We have not seen everything so we cannot assert the uniformity of nature on empirical grounds. There is just too much cosmos for us to examine in detail in the limited time we have. We assume uniformity since science based on general laws is impossible without uniformity. Uniformity is not a priori necessary, since a consistent set of laws which is not uniform can exist. Nor is uniformity given to us empirically, for the reasons stated. We simply have to assume it to do science based on universally quantified postulates.

And we have not (yet) found a fact to contradict uniformity but that does not mean there is no such fact. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Keep in mind that until the middle of the 19th century no fact contradicting Newton's law of gravitation was observed. Then lo!, it was observed. When telescopes with sufficient resolution were finally built, the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury counter indicated Newton's law of gravitation, which is only good as a first order approximation.

When we have observed ALL the facts and the evidence shows uniformity of the laws of nature we may conclude they are uniform. Please write as soon as we have observe ALL the facts there are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Boy, for someone who prides himself on his hard-hearted scientific attitude, your faith in some as yet undiscovered miracle and your capacity for selective adherance to scientific evidence is impressive. What do you mean, we haven't looked everywhere? Do you mean that orbiting around some distant star whose light that we see shows that it obeys all the same laws of physics that we do there may be a planet on which there may be a rock under which, when we look, we may find a happy Bob Kolker, violating all the laws of the known universe? Your remark argument is arbitrary. We have looked everywhere that matters for any reasonable meaning of your claim. The laws of the universe are uniform everywhere we have looked, and we have looked at a sphere 13.5 billion years in diameter. If you are troubled by leprechauns in your dreams that is your problem.

[Michelle]

The four forces work the same everywhere we can look, which is a sphere some 13.5 billion light years across. Let me know when you find a star with an aberrant spectrography. What more proof of the uniformity of nature do you want?

We have not looked everywhere. Since each second light that has never reached us before finally reaches us, as the cosmos expands. We have not seen everything so we cannot assert the uniformity of nature on empirical grounds. There is just too much cosmos for us to examine in detail in the limited time we have. We assume uniformity since science based on general laws is impossible without uniformity. Uniformity is not a priori necessary, since a consistent set of laws which is not uniform can exist. Nor is uniformity given to us empirically, for the reasons stated. We simply have to assume it to do science based on universally quantified postulates.

And we have not (yet) found a fact to contradict uniformity but that does not mean there is no such fact. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Keep in mind that until the middle of the 19th century no fact contradicting Newton's law of gravitation was observed. Then lo!, it was observed. When telescopes with sufficient resolution were finally built, the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury counter indicated Newton's law of gravitation, which is only good as a first order approximation.

When we have observed ALL the facts and the evidence shows uniformity of the laws of nature we may conclude they are uniform. Please write as soon as we have observe ALL the facts there are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It is not the business of philosophy, science, or any reasonable person to consider something for which no evidence appears to exist. Your reasoning here is epistemological poison.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Michelle R

[BaalChatzaf]

Boy, for someone who prides himself on his hard-hearted scientific attitude, your faith in some as yet undiscovered miracle and your capacity for selective adherance to scientific evidence is impressive. What do you mean, we haven't looked everywhere? Do you mean that orbiting around some distant star whose light that we see shows that it obeys all the same laws of physics that we do there may be a planet on which there may be a rock under which, when we look, we may find a happy Bob Kolker, violating all the laws of the known universe? Your remark argument is arbitrary. We have looked everywhere that matters for any reasonable meaning of your claim. The laws of the universe are uniform everywhere we have looked, and we have looked at a sphere 13.5 billion years in diameter. If you are troubled by leprechauns in your dreams that is your problem.

I don't believe in miracles. I believe in FACTS. When we have every last FACT perhaps we can verify that our universally quantified laws of physics are in FACT true. Please write when we have every last FACT there is recorded properly along with proof that theyu are recorded properly. In the mean time I will assume whatever I have to assume to permit universally quantified physical laws to be instantiated generally. If that means making a conventional assumption of uniformity, then that is what I do.

Also write us when we have a method of empirical verification that is NOT theory laden. For example you verify that your bookshelf is three feet two inches long (plus or minus an eight of an inch). How do you do that. You use a ruler. But you assume your ruler is rigid and carrying it from your storage closet to your bookshelf has not altered its length. But how do you know it is rigid and transporting it has not altered its length? Do you use another ruler to check? If so, how do you know that second ruler is rigid enough to check the first? Ah! You assert a theory that implies rulers made of materials such as hardwood or steel are rigid. But how do you know those theories are true in the application to your rulers? You need yet another set of verifications based on assumptions and so on and so on. In short you can't get away from theory laden modes of verification. So how do you sleep at night. By assuming the assumptions underlying your most basic theories (from which you infer the soundness of all your other theories) are true. In short you do what ever you have to do to draw conclusions from your empirical tests.

And so it goes.

Read Henri Poincare's -Science and Hypothesis- to find out why we cannot get away from conventions in science. Science is not totally reducible to apodictic judgments. At some point we have to resort to some kind of induction or abduction to have universal laws in hand. Or put it another way: there is no way to deduce the universe from necessarily true judgments. We have resort to observational contingencies. No choice. We either do that or we have no science. Among the observational contingencies we are forced to infer uniformity of law by some kind of induction. Our most imposing castles of thought are built on somewhat squooshy foundations. That is what we get for not being Gods or not being Omniscient and Omnipotent.

Do not be overly shocked to fiind out someday that your favorite theory in which you have the greatest confidence has been empirically falsified. That possibility always exists. In the mean time use the theories which are supported by massive amounts of empirical verification and are not yet falsified. (Think of Newtonian Gravitation before it was found out that it did not predict the orbit of Mercury correctly). And don't be totally confident in The Theory of General Relativity. Said theory did not predict Vera Ruben's motion curves which contradict Keplerian motion without some help, and Fritz Zwicky's Dark Matter. Dark Matter is a conventional hypothesis that has been formulated to save the Theory of General Relativity. It is the only way to keep Keplerian Motion of stars in galaxies intact (at this juncture).

To answser you other question the Theory of General Relativity has never been tested inside a Black Hole. There is no reason to believe it will hold inside a Black Hole. No one has been inside a Black Hole --- ever. Not only that even if someone did go in he would not be able to tell someone outside what he found. And without Black Holes (a hypothetical entity) we cannot account for the strange dances that some stars do around no visible body.

As long as we depend on obsevations and instruments we will have to play the Very Old Game of Saving the Appearances. Scientists have been doing it for nearly three thousand yers.

Ba'al Chatzaf