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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Logical Positivism fails as a philosophical method.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42