Seems like there's an interesting contrast. Within philosophy, LP and Popperian views are seen as examples of something that has been refuted rather decisively, based on specific arguments. But outside of those who think directly about stuff like that, it seems like the sentiments of either view is quite widespread, at least implicitly.
For example, I've heard comments like "well this isn't falsifiable and therefore not science" or "if you can't test it (meaning empirically) and it's not a provable theorem in math, it's not worth thinking about" from various physics profs and TAs in college. Before that, my entire high school education in science basically adopted a Popper-esque explanation of science as a given fact and taught it to students. Many physicist oppose string theory because it's not falsifiable. The opposition of philosophers to LP or falsificationism seems to be largely ignored. In my experience, many are even surprised to hear that Popper isn't accepted standard in the philosophy of science.
Does this seem like an accurate assessment and do philosophers have anything to say about this contrast?
Since soullism would supposed be about the superation of the laws of physics and the abolition of all forms of hierarchy, shouldn't soulism also seeks for the abolishment of materialism, (neo)positivism and new atheism, since all of those are supposed to be against the idea of superation of laws of physics, mainly that all of those attack soulism as if it was a form of religion? Mainly what new atheists usually do. In a soulist outlook, materialism, (neo)positivism and new atheism would be considered as purely forms of reactionarism and hierarchy, since (neo)positivism advocates it would be impossible to superate the laws of physics and there is nothing beyond and above matter, the same for materialism and new atheism. Besides, of course, neopositivists and new atheists are majoritary right-wing and think soulism is utopic and is even a form of science denialism and even a "pseudoscience" and a "pseudophilosophy" for some of them, being that soulism sees natural science and all other human sciences and knowledges as still limited and there is a lot for be discovered yet and that the scientific method and popperist epistemology (falseability) is not one of the best epistemologies that exist and there are several others and even several others scientific methods, also do not forgetting that soulism advocates studies on metaphysics/extraphysics and the creation of ways and technologies for reach them objectively (directly), such as the evolution of humans into highly evolved beings, and the soulist philosophy is still under construction and there are a lot of lines of philosophy inside soulism, showing that analytical philosophy and continental philosophy can be united as one and a new philosophical school can be created, mainly like soulist philosophy or even as soulian philosophy, since soulist would be used to refer directly to the ideology and soulian to the philosophy, such as marxist and marxian and similars. Anyway, everyone that works on for the development of soulist theory sould consider the abolition of materialism, positivism/neopositivism, and new atheism, since all three are enemies of soulism even more than the laws of physics and hierarchy itself.
Disclaimer: I'm a layman.
How do verificationism and logical positivism differ? Also, how does falsificationism play into these?
Moreover, please tell me if the following is a (in your eyes) sufficient argument for the rejection of verificationism:
Under verificationism, the proposition "All men are mortal" is a vacuous nonsensical proposition. I object to this: Once there are no more men left (and there can never be any more men), then the verificationist will start to claim that it is in fact a meaningful proposition to put forward and, furthermore, also a true one. This is because he can then say that there have been men in the past but all have perished (because we have established that there are no men left). However, the fact that the proposition suddenly becomes meaningful and true just because all men have perished is absurd. A true claim that is independent from time is true for all time. I would put forward the claim that there's implicit for-all quantifiers in the initial claim so that the full version of "All men are mortal" is actually "For all time, for all points in space, all men are mortal" and, hence, time independent.
Even just intuitively, in light of the above example about a proposition becoming meaningful: It makes far more sense to posit that the sentence became knowable (as opposed to unknowable as has been the case up until the last man perished). It isn't the sentence that has changed from meaningless to meaningful; rather, our accessible data has changed which then allowed us to suddenly return a verdict about its veracity.
Please tell me if you think this is a convincing argument or what part I should flesh out more.
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that when people say logical positivism is a philosophical view that's been soundly defeated, it draws on a caricature of the views of the Vienna circle, as they were ridiculously smart folk that I find it hard to believe could have their views boiled down to "lol nothing's true if I can't science it."
Someone may be tempted to reply "their views really are that bad," but I'm looking for the other side. Does anyone have any good book recommendations (preferably audiobook) for books which either (1) give an overview of their views but shows the nuances that are often ignored by their critics, or (2) tries to revive their views by presenting a new set of positions that addresses its main criticisms?
I dont think this isn't allowed but let me know and ill delete it. But anyway, so I'm a history student and for some reason that I can't understand my course has a law modules even though it's history I'm studying. And none of it makes any sense to me at all. And I'm meant to be writing an essay on one of the three theories I mentioned. I've tried reading the required reading for the module but it just makes no sense to me at all and google was not much help. So if anyone here could give me definitions of those theories and one or two examples of them in society I would be so grateful because it's been four hours and I've written "in this essay..."
Since I was talking on soulist discord server about how it is theoretically possible to break several laws of physics, mutate chemistry properties, change biological properties and even turn mathematics a lot complex and hard to be calculated. And soulism advocates to reach those things, and I made several posts abour materialism, positivism, new atheism and now about scientism... Could soulism refute/debunk those things in the future?
I know on this subreddit has a lot of materialists while on the server there's just a few or almost none. So, maybe that's the why people here has a different understanding of those on soulist server.
We live in a society moved by "scientific evidences" (scientism), materialism, positivism and new atheism... Where every day people become more and more materialistic and more dependent of scientific studies and opinions. And this would be so harsh in case soulism manage to become a thing and prove it is right on physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics.
So, the question of this post is more related into the refuting of those ideologies and doctrines in people's minds and showing they are wrong and how would people react over those. Mainly if soulism manage to show that there's infinite dimensions and multiverses. And that we are just a universe among infinite of them and extraphysical mechanics theory is correct...
I know how people here are more materialist than on the server I will get different answers, but it is necessary to remember soulism is an anti-materialist, anti-positivist and spiritualist ideology, and even focused on extraphysics and on a lot of spiritual and magic things.
I really hate that people preach positivism as the panacea of success. They think just being positive automatically attracts success, and even worse, they have this paradigm that positivism and negativism (more like realism) are mutually exclusive, when I think they can perfectly coexist. It's a huge flaw to think one size fits all and just because positivism works for a lot of people better than negativism, having an equal balance of both will not lead you anywhere even if that is what works for you.
I am relatively new to CT and have heard that critiques of positivism are an essential building block towards a better understanding of CT.
I'm in university at the moment (English maj., Philosophy min.) and am familiar with Marx and some continental philosophy but, unfortunately (for me) most of the philosophy department at my school leans towards the analytical side. Classes are all online so I can't really ask a prof this question.
Anyway, are there any specific writings (critiques of positivism) that you've found helpful?
I’m 38 and my whole life I’ve had skinny arms. As a teen, no matter how much I worked out, my arms never got definition or much thicker. My butt was actually meaty and my legs were thicker in proportion to my arms. I also as a high schooler never had a 6 pack, though my abs are strong as hell and you can walk on them, literally. So I never felt confident about myself, always hated my body. As I got married and became a dad, I started gaining weight. My body turned to a dadbod. For a while I put myself through P90X and got back to my high school weight, still didn’t feel confident. I gained the weight back and gained some more after I blew my knee and was on crutches for 6 weeks. Ironically enough, I’m a closeted nudist and started chatting in nudist chat rooms on cam. That started to make me feel good about myself and today, I’m at my heaviest 275lbs, and I only work out for health reasons, not to make my body good looking for society’s standards. Do I still need to lose some weight for health? Yes, but I refuse to get below 220-230. I like my dad bod, I like my belly and today I got shirtless a lot more than I used to when I was skinny.
In my journey I also realized something that I always knew it was there. I like big girls. I find them sexy. I don’t mean that putting down skinny women, it’s just my preference. As I started voicing that to myself, I realized that anti-body positivism exists amongst guys. If a guy dates or hooks up with a big girl, he’s made fun of by his buddies. That makes men who admire big girls to huge their desires and leads to the fetichism of big women and leads to guys who hook up with big girls secretly. It’s so harmful! I can’t speak about when the roles are reversed, but I’d think women would put down other women that date or hook up a chubby guy. I could be wrong.
I’m married to a woman who battled ED in high school, got under 100lbs back then. When I met her, she was 150-160. Just like me after having a child and marriage, she gained weight. She’s at her heaviest, my guess between 200 and 230, but she won’t let me see her weight. She always puts herself down for her body, whether it’s when I pay her a compliment randomly or when we are intimate, she will say no or no I’m not. She tries to tell me that I’m a chubby chaser and that I like big girls. I do. But if I tell her yea I am those things, all she will hear is that I see her the way she sees herself: a fat cow and a whale (her own words o describe herself). The... keep reading on reddit ➡
I'll add the disclaimer that I am not a philosopher; I am from a natural sciences background, and, for some unknown reason, we were never taught any philosophy. I apologise, therefore, if the following is a little incoherent.
I am interested to know if it is reasonable to be an ontological realist and an epistemological idealist, whilst also being somewhat of a post-positivist and pragmatist.
As an ontological realist, the universe is objective and mind-independent (to some extent). It has certain properties that exist independently of perception by conscious beings.
An epistemological idealist would accept ontological realism, but would recognise that the representations that we form of the external world would be at least partially determined by the structure of the nervous system that is doing the perceiving and representing. For example, wave-particle duality: an electron is neither a particle nor a wave, but we can represent it as either depending on the situation; we cannot, however, conceive of an electron as both simultaneously, or understand fundamentally what an electron 'is'. Rather, we represent it in ways familiar to us (i.e., as either a particle or a wave).
Some areas of knowledge seem better justified from a post-positivist (positivism with blurry edges) perspective. These would be areas of knowledge more typical to the natural sciences. For example, knowledge regarding the chemical composition of DNA.
Some forms of knowledge seem better justified from a pragmatist perspective. These would be areas of knowledge more typical to sociology and social psychology. For example, explaining the role of cultural capital in social inequality. Sociological systems are big and complex and do not lend themselves easily to the 'traditional scientific approaches'; despite this, knowledge generated from sociological studies may have important and effective practical applications, and as such would perhaps constitute a valid form of knowledge. It seems to me that this position is further reinforced if one is an epistemological idealist: knowledge of the external world is a subjective representation in the human mind, anyway, some of these representations may closely approximate reality (a post-positivist position?), some may be further removed (acceptable to a pragmatist?), but they are fundamentally subjective either way.
I feel like both ontological realism and epistemological idealism are consistent with Kant (transcendental idealism). Kant... keep reading on reddit ➡
The article itself seems to be from a blog that posts pro-Kurdish, pro-PKK, and anti-Erdogan content, which are are all things I'm sympathetic with. The anti positivism would seem to fit in with Öcalan's social ecology but the blog writer doesn't make much of a case besides strawmaning it and claiming it's a state ideology.
How much of Buddhism agrees with Logical positivism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
In particular, I find that both agrees with the criterion of verification (rather than falsifiability).
If you cannot observe it, it's metaphysics (Buddha said the all is 6 sense bases).
I ask because the Copenhagen interpretation is influenced by Logical positivism, and it's the most popular interpretation of quantum physics. It might be because of that that many Buddhists think that quantum agrees with Buddhism, but it might be that Logical positivism influence is acting through this. There are certainly other interpretations of quantum physics which have like no impact on Buddhism.
I am a feminist myself who has just started studying gender studies at university but I need some help with the logic here. Many feminist are sex-positive, pro-choice and think that fathers should spend as much time with their children as mothers should. I am not opposed to any of these things and I think it all sounds great, but I struggle with some things. Let's say a woman/someone who is able to bear children has casual sex with a fertile man and gets pregnant and wants to keep the baby/fetus. Chances are she hasn't talked to the man she had sex with about children and parenthood so she probably doesn't know how he feels about it. However, his feelings and opinion shouldn't matter that much when it comes to whether or not she should carry the baby or not. So she could in theory have sex with a man who doesn't want children and then shame him for not being there for his children.
So my question is: is it reasonable for a woman to expect a man she doesn't have a relationship with to raise their children together with her if he doesn't have a say in whether or not they have children? And do you always have to bring up the topic of children and parenthood with everyone you sleep with (even when you use contraception)?
Good day! I need a 2 page essay about Positivism and Cognitive justice for may social science class. Deadline is tomorrow afternoon at 2PM. If you're free and want some easy 200 pesos, this is for you. The paper should include a brief sumamry of each theory and their differences. Payment is thru gcash or paymaya.
True body positivism would not feel a need to shove their views down others throats, if you truly believe you’re beautiful, and there are people who find you attractive, then the opinion of the mass public should not matter.
I can't find much information on the subject, at least in Spanish (don't worry, you can answer in English)
Been reading about logical positivism today and wondered if anyone could give me an example of at least one objection to logical positivism?
For the Winter Holiday Events- there should be the addition of a Mastery XP Level that is otherwise unobtainable in the game; it is called "Festive". Once you reach this mastery level, you would obtain unique Christmas themed hats that you cannot otherwise get,
For Halloween Events- should be the addition of another otherwise unobtainable Mastery XP level called "Spooky". (Yes, the names would for obvious reasons be child-friendly) Once you achieve this level, you would obtain unique Halloween themed hats that you cannot otherwise obtain.
Finally for the Chinese New Year Events- add in a final otherwise unobtainable Mastery XP Level called "New Year". (Of something, I'm most unsure about the name for this one) Once you get this level, you would receive unique Chinese New Year themed hats that are otherwise non-obtainable, who knows maybe even one of these could allow players to tame, have habitats for and obtain the Reindeer?
To do this; the only way the player can get all of these specific Mastery Levels is by riding the corresponding animals they have obtained from those Events in the Stampede- while the other xp from other animals would go toward the normal xp Levels (that we know so well). This would make it feel special and give a sense of challenge to the player as they have to go out and find them to get them.