Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Logical Positivism fails as a philosophical method. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Logical Positivism fails as a philosophical method.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The verificationist criterion of meaning, as Ayer himself conceded, cannot itself be verified empirically and thus self-refutes by its own standard.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A philosophical method that eliminates its own foundational principle as meaningless lacks the internal consistency required for a viable methodology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Quine's 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism' demonstrates that the analytic-synthetic distinction underpinning logical positivism's division of meaningful statements is untenable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Logical positivism's proscription of metaphysics as meaningless nonsense illegitimately forecloses inquiry into presuppositions that scientific practice itself depends upon, as Stebbing's directional analysis reveals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A philosophical method that cannot account for the conditions of its own epistemic enterprise—including the status of logical laws and mathematical truths—fails to provide a complete and coherent theory of knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Logical Positivism attempts to start from a priori assumptions about the nature of language and the principles of symbolism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Logical Positivism attempts to draw limits on what we can think by means of those a priori assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Logical Positivism seeks to make everything clear at once rather than proceeding step by step.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A philosophical method that cannot account for the conditions of its own epistem...A philosophical method that eliminates its own foundational principle as meaning...Logical Positivism attempts to draw limits on what we can think by means of thos...Logical Positivism attempts to start from a priori assumptions about the nature ...
    +5 moreShow less
    Logical Positivism seeks to make everything clear at once rather than proceeding...Logical positivism's proscription of metaphysics as meaningless nonsense illegit...Philosophy cannot develop by attempting to make everything clear at once.Quine's 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism' demonstrates that the analytic-synthetic dist...The verificationist criterion of meaning, as Ayer himself conceded, cannot itsel...

    Similar

    Reinhold's philosophy is methodologically flawed.84%Scholastic Aristotelian philosophical methods are deeply flawed as a m...83%The philosophy of method is incomplete.80%Mysticism fails as a conception of being because it makes error imposs...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: stebbing
    View source passageHide passage
    What we ordinarily say, we say unclearly. We speak unclearly because we think unclearly. It is the task of philosophy to render our thoughts clear. … We cannot clarify our thoughts by thinking about thinking, nor by thinking about logic. We have to think about what we were thinking about. The philosopher considers a given expression, and analyses it in order to find another expression which says more clearly what the original expression said less clearly. This investigation is not linguistic. We
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit