Episode #120 ... A Brief Look At Logical Positivism

Get more:

Find the podcast:

Be social:

Thank you for making the show possible. 🙂

[Hulloder]

This really is one of the best podcasts ever. Thank you so much.

[barnumcastillo]

Thank you, I needed a deeper knowledge about the movement to understand one of the chapter of "Consilience the Unity of Knowledge"

[silencio]

Another episode! Keep up the good work Stephen!

[susanwright]

Really excellent work showing the path of logical positivism through Kuhn.

[JDesrosiers]

One of the most interesting episode so far

[brandonjimenez]

Brother you been MIA(MISSING IN ACTION) ADMIRE YOUR HARD WORK KEEP IT UP

[Edruezzi]

Circa 12:00 is erroneous. The black swan problem shows the problem of induction and does not mean that science is unverifiable.

[johnnowakowski]

Thank you for posting this. I needed this explanation to understand why it is untenable as a logical theory...

[CancelledPhilosopher]

Street epistemology sounds a lot like logical positivism, which is why I have similar criticisms of both. Hume was the first of many rationalists to start pointing out hundreds of years ago that according to logical positivism's own logic, scientific and empirical methods of varification are unreliable and unfalsifiable, because they're socially constructed.

[jamessheffield]

When Dr Johnson kicked the stone
“After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, ‘I refute it thus.'”(Boswell’s Life of Samuel Johnson,  

[Ffkslawlnkn]

Could you give an example for the current scientific premises determining what is verifiable?

[jamesbarlow]

I'm using up West's podcasts like a drunkard!

[christinemartin]

If language is imperfect (which it is), does that mean that any endeavor involving words should cease? Curiosity and progress would go out the window.

[parvayalar]

Did Thomas Kuhn actually say falsification doesn't work? Because very foundation of falsification is to try to disprove the current scientific theory. To say it is reinforced seems to be more of a claim pertaining the social group of scientists rather than the methodology itself.
Secondly, while scientific revolution did indeed bring changes to our basic premises, it in no way completely invalidates prior work. What it does is simply adding detail to older works. Say the logical equivalent of finding the weight of 10 apples in Kg accuracy and then to milligram accuracy.

[robstorm]

I think arguing that different breakthroughs in science and the various scientific revolutions *always* threw out the science that came before it is ridiculous. Finding that certain planetary motions were not as they seem did not invalidate all mathematics and understandings of physics that came before it. Even with relativity, the science of Newton is still used today everywhere. Einstein did not come even close to making everything Newton said untrue or to be thrown out. Finding that there are more complexities to the details of any science does not completely invalidated prior findings or their usefulness. Verification as a process is a fine way to live by and inform your actions by if 99.999% of your tests are predictable under it.

[pavlovkuki]

Very helpful.. Grateful enough. But it would be better with, small diagrams, headings.. But not colorful graphics, fast editing.. A fine middle..
Just an admirer's comment.
From India

[rodrigodiazcasas]

Now, wait a second. I think there is a big big hole in the last part of the podcast. You say that any theory of any given time is "validated" by the science paradigm that run things at that particular era. Ok, that is understandable. BUT. We can certainly agree that methods of validation HAVE progressive been becoming more "transparent" and less dependent on circumstances: i think that Poppers falsacionism represents its climax: if you went back in time and applied Popper's principle, WITH THE GIVEN TECHNOLOGIES OF THAT TIME, you would be definitly closer to truth than with any mithology or philosophic rudiments. At least, you would be able to discard that wich is imposible to affirm and would have to wait for new technologies to do so. So YES, validation depends on time, but NO, i do not think that a paradigm shift erases completly what has been done (specially in relation with cientific methods) . There is a certain... progress (im not a fan of the word by i feel it does apply here)... in history of science. A progress further into objectivity (that can never be exausted).

[elijaguy]

All white swans are white. Unless the lamp is blue.

[Learningmadeeasy]

Can I get a transcript of this video? please.

[angusmcintosh]

Why didn't the Logical Positivists simply substitute refutability by scientific method as their test for meaningful propositions instead of verification? A meaningful statement is then not one which can be confirmed by scientific method (of which there are none as you point out), but one which is in principle capable of refutation by experiment or mathematical reason. This would work far better as a way of sifting metaphysical propositions from meaningful philosophical ones. So why did they allow their movement to be unnecessarily vulnerable on this front by insisting on verification?