Criticism of Logical Positivism


Criticism of Logical Positivism

            As it has to do with verifiability criterion, Bertrand Russell criticize Logical Positivist by positing, "that a statement  is proof to be true, is the statement itself proof to be true. Because to say that all the future outcome of a general statement are true is itself a general statement of which the instances cannot be enumerated, and no general statement can be established on purely empirical evidence except one applying to a list of particulars all of which have been observed.[1]

Furthermore, the very criterion of meaning or cognitive significance embraced by logical positivists is their self destruct  or bane of logical positivism. It has been widely argued against them that empirical science, which they sought to set free from the webs of the high sounding language of metaphysics, dies with the verifiability principle. As indeed, the scientific method taken by the logical positivists stressed the meaningfulness of propositions, it left the propositions of science vulnerable to the same criterion. Bruce Caldwell interpretation of Popper’s critique which one could not agree with. Thus for Popper, "flying horse exist." This sentence can be proved to be true by finding a flying horse. But it cannot prove to be false, even if it is false: If a flying horse could not be found, that doesn't mean it is not in existence or none exists. If verifiability is used as the demarcation criterion, the statement "flying horse exist" would have to be considered a part of science.[2]
Moreover, since scientist posit that all statement are of universal form: e.g All Ys are x, the critics argues that such proposition are not empirically proof to be true.

The Logical Positivist seeing that this criterion of verifiability is self destroying to logical positivism, alterations were made by some logical positivists leading to the drop-off of the hold on rigorous verification through experience. This appears in the work of Rudolf Carnap, an inexorable disciple of logical positivist tradition.  It does then follow as Thomas Uebel puts it that, "while Carnap's focus on the diminution of descriptive terms allows for the conclusive verification of some statements, it must be noted that his criterion also allowed universally quantified statements to be meaningful, provided they were syntactically and terminologically correct.[3]

Afterwards, the verifiability criterions were reduced to what is just confirm or what is just testify with Carnap. Thus, a proposition should at least be testable for it to pass as scientific.


[1] Bertrand Russell “Logical Positivism” Revue Internationale de Philosophie, p.12
[2] Bruce J. Caldwell “Clarifying Popper” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Mar., 1991), p.2
[3] Uebel, Thomas, "Vienna Circle", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

SUMMARY OF PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE STUDY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE.

summary and appraisal of chapters one, two and three of the book The African Origin of Greek Philosophy: An Exercise in Afrocentrism, by Innocent C. Onyewuenyi.

THE LAST THREE WAYS TO PROVES GOD'S EXISTENCE BY THOMAS AQUINAS