The Vienna Circle and Logical Positivism

[francemaster]

I don't intend to offend these very brilliant men, but the reason applied to our society is instrumental (can be absurd) Wisdom, although it does not provide certainty of fact, is probably more important that any scientific truth; as it is the reflective path to a happy life. USA today is extremely rich, scientific, and yet not very happy. Furthermore, moral truths are universal in account of reason, and thus, very important to have a society in which investigation does not undermine humanity.

[Ewochable]

There are some mistakes in the introtext under the video. Logical positivism is not a theory of knowledge (though there is much epistemology in the positivist teachings) but of meaning. So the claim isn't that there exist only two types of interesting knowledge, but that there exist only two types of meaningful statements. Also, metaphysical propositions are synthetical, so what they exclude is synthetical propositions that doesn't live up to one of the many veri.cr.of meaning, i.e. non verifiab

[Ewochable]

@Ewochable the text seems to confuse theories of meaning with theories of demarkation, like that of Popper. Even the positivists confused the difference and had heated debates over Poppers "criterion of meaning", which wasn't about meaning, but about worthwhile theories.

[stevedekorte]

The video says "Logical Positivism asserted that the only kind of sensible discourse was scientific." IIRC, this isn't correct. They considered analytic statements sensible too - their point was that you couldn't play bait and switch word games between the two, which is what metaphysics does.

[mhonchankikon]

this talk is good. it gave me a clear idea. Logical positivism is actually very meaningful and practical, But what happens to the other thoughts which cannot be explained? Just leave them off and let them be?. Actually philosophy is all about thinking, and logical positivism don't give a better chance to think and explore.

[schtolteheim]

It surprises me that there is a name for every obvious concept.

When researching about philosophical terms the banality behind them astounds me, and also that people want to converse by these plain terms.

[LooksAeterna]

I can't believe how these brilliant men could actually bring themselves to believe their own utter bunk.

Hail the late Wittgenstein, Gödel's subversive work.

Google Patrick Grim "Incomplete Universe"

[Paraconsistant]

@LooksAeterna Late Wittgenstein sucks, you most likely do not understand Godel's incompleteness theorems, and Grim's work has, for good reason, passed largely ignored within the philosophy of science.

[LooksAeterna]

@Paraconsistant Oh, so we have resorted to swearing, mere allusions devoid of argumentation (Grim) and unfounded assumptions and demonstrations of total lack of education: exactly by what inductive procedure do you a likelihood to my background, especially given that it is openly stated on my channel ? I have studied the Gödel theorems in detail, and being a statistics minor (major in logic) I know a think or two about "likelihood".

You don't. Positivism is medieval bunk.

[Paraconsistant]

@LooksAeterna I did not swear; I introduced no overt incivility. Godel's proofs merely shows that Hilbert's program was impossible. Also, that logicism (to which many logical positivists, though certainly not all, subscribed) is impossible, Godel's theorems do not show: check out Crispin Wright and Bob Hale's work on neo-logicism. Moreover, like quantum mechanics, Godel's theorems are *often* hijacked by cranks for a intellectually dubious ends.

[Paraconsistant]

@LooksAeterna As for logical positivism, to say their work is bunk to reveal an utter lack of acquaintance with formal epistemology and philosophy of science: Everything now being addressed in PoS has its origins in logical positivism. Re: Popper. You find Popper attractive yet he was, ex hypothesi, incapable of making sense of inductive confirmation (he denied such a thing, in fact). Odd. Re: Grim. I made no insult: It's a fact: No serious work is being done on Grim's thesis.

[Paraconsistant]

@LooksAeterna Lastly, you might want to acquaint yourself with the current trend toward logical positivism. E.g., the University of Vienna is home to Institute Vienna Circle, dedicated to continuing the varied work of the LPs. Check out also Thomas Uebel's article on the Vienna Circle in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Or the very many neo-verificationists throughout academia. The LPs got much wrong and much right, all of which has served palatably influential.

[LooksAeterna]

@Paraconsistant Suffice to say: it would be spelled "(Para)consist e nt". Don't teach me about what Gödel's theorems mean, and no use for allusions to "trends" because being a logician, I can think for myself here.

To say that positivism is bunk is not refuted by pointing out that positivists also said a lot of true things which are being expanded upon. That much should be obvious for anyone capable of some basic reasoning. But what to do with people who - trying a fancy name - cannot spell it.

[Paraconsistant]

@LooksAeterna You have made it abundantly clear that you are a logician (and statistician), but you have not made your point clear :-P

As for my handle, *Paraconsistent* was no longer available when I created my YouTube account.

[LooksAeterna]

@Paraconsistant For those who can still think relatively independently, my point is obvious.

Besides some basic reasoning skills should make it clear that the poisitivists' criterion for sense-making OBVIOUSLY doesn't not make sense according to itself.

So what doesn positivism boil down to ? It is a power grab for a fascist dominance over truth claims in service of whoever has enough financial resources to control large bodies of organizations such as scientific projects: the banksters.

[Paraconsistant]

@LooksAeterna Are you serious? What a waste of f**king time... and you call yourself a logician...

[LooksAeterna]

@Paraconsistant Of course I am seriuous, and as I said: your name calling and filthy language are exactly the kind of bullying tactics which postivism are all about. Just deny that reason exists and allow only the instruments of knowledge controlled by the bosses of the positivists.

You may talk to your own kind now.

For anyone with some reasoning capacity left, the immediately self-contradicting nature of positivism is obvious.

[LooksAeterna]

@Paraconsistant Oh and regarding the philosophy of science, positivism has not much to do with it, that's Karl Popper whom I respect a lot !

[aramhampson]

i wonder if they liked to party

[Gears182]

Why did i pick philosophy for A level :(

[rmeddy1]

they were going good until Quine dropped the banhammer.

[mirabileamavi]

I can't find a single video on Carnap =/

[andrewzot]

this video is too slow.w.w.w.w.w

[bigcheef89]

pleasee tell me the music in the intro!

[LennyBound]

@bigcheef89 Haha, I think it's just some genetic background music that was made for this specific documentary series. If you want to know more about it, then head over to films(dot)com and search for "Analytic Philosophy."

Hope that helps! :-)

[ogirv101]

You're correct about Einstein and Schroodinger,I do amit that, and I do apologize for speaking about them. Also, the problem with pragmaticism and LP is that they don't really mix. I know the pragmatic theory on epistemology, I know who both James and Pierce are, but the problem of circular reasoning still remains. You see, the validity of the verification theory is a tautological axiom, and LP cannot accept this because pragmaticism is a theory that has roots in metaphysics which LP denies.

[Dialetheia]

While Einstein and Schrodinger (and other scientists) attacked LP, Heisenberg and Bohr both embraced LP, which contributed to their interpretation of quantum mechanics (which remains the predominant interpretation to this day). Other scientists also embraced positivism, though before LP per se, to include, Ernst Mach (who directly inspired the LPs), Wilhelm Ostwald (Nobel Prize in 1909), H. Helmholtz, to name only a few.

[ogirv101]

7:00

Ironically, the man who set Science down on a TOE (Albert Einstein), himself rejected logical positivism. Max Planck's religious beliefs were partially inspired by Schroodinger's and Einstein's attack on logical positivms. Einstein was the second most influential scientist, Schroodinger ranked 18th, and Planck 25th. These were tremendously influential scientists living at the time, and they rejected logical positivism. Irony is always a good thing.

[Dialetheia]

Many other scientists, however, were themselves LPs, to include, but not limited to, Ernst Mach, Werner Heisenberg, and Niels Bohr (in fact, many of the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics were, at the time, LPs). Let us not also forget the many mathematicians who were also LPs. Lastly, while Einstein did eventually reject LP, he did draw heavily upon Ernst Mach for developing relativity. In the end, Bohr and Heisenberg won the debate with Einstein and Schrodinger over quantum theory.

[ogirv101]

One question, how can you empirically verify or use logico-linguistic terms to verify the a sentence espressing the validity of verificationism?

I espouse science, and empirical observation, but even I see how radical they took it, to a point of scientism. Their attitudes were somewhat correct, but they took it too far. It's like Science's fundamental radicals.

[Dialetheia]

Ogirv,

LP had it flaws, to be sure, but the verification theory of meaning needn't itself be verifiable: it is a standard by which to impute meaning. If you demand that it itself be verifiable, then it would quickly become a wonderful bit of circular reasoning, and we don't want that. Nevertheless, to assuage your worries, you should look into the pragmatist theory of meaning, ala Peirce and James. It, I think, provides a way out of the (perceived) difficulty that you mention.

[steviebkhall]

their NOW! They would be sittin like fly's on a tommyturd today.human is human and being is being!

[Judas130]

i disagree, you can reduce everything.

[jabberwock01]

With historical 20/20 hindsight we can see that this austere logical approach against metaphysics was prompted by a deep opposition to the totalitarian metaphysical systems of nazism and state communism.

[Vice81]

@jabberwock01

Umm actually those 2 were products of positivism if anything

[ichplusminus]

Nice video. It makes it all sound so easy. But i've been trying to read some of Rudolph Carnap's books(eg. Philosophy of Science), and after a few chapters they always get pretty complicated... :-)

[jeitomoloch]

Excellent video.

[robotaholic]

well then out the window with imagination

[LennyBound]

I don't think logical positivists would have a problem with imagination per se; they'd only object if you used it to make truth-claims about what exists in the world. :-)

[ContraWagner]

At least the logical positivists were right about their attitude.

[tempemonkey2323]

We truly live in a lazy, uninformed society when this video only has 27 views... Doesn't anyone know the impact that the Vienna Circle had on our culture and society... Sadly no.

[mattpier]

:) I think we need to make philosophical education more sexy...maybe a movie that develops the ideas through a dramatic struggle between personalities. Ambition, betrayal, reconciliation, all with a good score in the background. Kevin Spacey could play Carnap; Ewan McGregor could play Popper. :)

[snowtrot]

Schweetness.