The Vienna Circle and Logical Positivism

This clip briefly describes the rise of the Vienna Circle and the ideas of logical positivism. The Vienna Circle had various members, however, this clip only mentions Moritz Schlick, Rudolph Carnap, Otto Neurath, and Kurt Gödel. It then briefly discusses the relationship between logical positivism and Ludwig Wittgenstein's early work (exemplified in his "Tractatus-Logico Philosophicus").

The main thought behind logical positivism was the notion that all worthwhile knowledge is scientific knowledge. This can be best expressed in their "Verificationist Criterion of Meaning." Simply put, there exist only two types of genuine knowledge: analytic truths that are true by definition (i.e. mathematics and logic), and synthetic truths that are true by repeatable empirical observations (i.e. physics, biology, chemistry, etc.). All statements that fail to fit into these two categories (i.e. metaphysical, ethical, aesthetic, etc.) are seen as emotive and cognitively meaningless.

Another signature aspect of logical positivism is a general disdain towards metaphysical speculation. While some positivists thought we ought to suspend judgment concerning metaphysics entirely, others felt provisional commitment to a metaphysics to ground the empirical sciences was justified. Consequently, a few promoted physicalism as a metaphysical theory that could provide unification to all of the natural sciences.

The clip also mentions Otto Neurath's idea of building a ship while at sea as a metaphor for an anti-foundationalist epistemology.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Vienna Circle
• Logical Positivism
• anti-foundationalism
• Wittgenstein
• non-cognitivism

[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! :-)

[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. :-)

[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"

[Judas130]

i disagree, you can reduce everything.

[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]

@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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[Paraconsistant]

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

[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 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 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 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.