why havn't you accepted the philosophical position most compatible with science? Positivism
this meme again
Because useful =/= true.
Every thread on this board is shitty trolling desu senpai
>>431193
> shitty trolling
The actual term is "postmodern".
>>431164
No one who seriously studies philosophy is a positivist. Also no, it's not compatible with science, if you are a logical positivists you cannot believe in the scientific method. Postivism is self-refuting because it cannot justify itself. It also refutes the scientific method because the method cannot be proven empirically, only rationally.
Not only that but you cannot hold a single position in positivism. Wittgenstein showed us that language is entirly subjective, so statements cannot have inherit truth-values. This negates the positivists position of trying to turn all statements into binary true or false statements. Since all thoughts need to be expressed in language this pretty much locks the postivist out of speaking. For instance you could not even reply to this post using only true statements (or if you would like to try defining the truth value of each individual part of your sentence....which them-self need to have truth values explained with yet more language, an infinite cycle).
So in short positivism is a joke, only held by hypocritical stem-fags that don't want to actually learn philosophy. Even the philosophers that went down the path ended up just refuting their own ideas, such as how Wittgenstein ended up showing his idea of atomic facts is nonsense.
Positivism was totally discarded last century by everyone including its creators.
>>431205
>positivism was so Fedora it imploded in on itself like an autismal black hole
Fucking top kek
>>431229
Basically
>>431231
There's a great line from witty where he's basically like what relevance does sterile logic chopping have with living day to day life? But for the life of me I can't find it
>>431229
Russel spent his entire career, several decades and working with multiple other people, to try to prove that 1+1=2 using hardcore logic: emperisism only, no items, final destination. Russel failed, he discovered his famous Russel's paradox and realized any proof he made is going to be self-referencing. Because any proof is going to be self-referencing you cannot have emperical proofs for anything, there must always be a rationalism aspect to affirm at least one part.
His pupil Wittgenstein provided a proof for 1+1=2 with a simple example "here is a hand. here is my other hand. That's two hands" Wittgenstein spent about 5 seconds of this compared to the years of time Russel had wasted on his autism. This story represents beautifully how retarded the whole venture into positivism is.
>>431259
Top fucking kek. Russel really was a spergo-tron
>>431191
There is no reason why you would want to find out what is true other than to make use of it.
boring
>>431362
define useful.
Oh wait you can't do that with logical positivism or empiricism.
>>431259
Johnny has an apple
Jimmy gives him another apple
Johnny now has two apples
There, I just proved 1+1=2
You can't build a philosophy on the scientific method since the scientific method itself requires a philosophical basis.
>>431389
That basis being rationalism of course.
>>431374
Well you are just rephrasing the "here's a hand" arguement. The point is that you can only prove 1+1=2 rationally. Russel wanted a complete set of math that could be proven empirically and you can't do that without self-referencing (in which case it's not a complete proof)
For instance the "here's a hand" argument fails to prove the concepts of one and two. Try constructing a proof for 1+1=2 without referencing any numbers. Does this sound like a terrible waste of time? If it does than you are against positivism which denies rationalist thinking: because rationalist thinking opens the door for subjectivity. if you want to completly remove subjectivity literally all your proofs must be empirical....but to do that you first need an empirical proof for every word you will use in your proofs. Or you can give up the retarded empirical approach and allow for rationalism and subjectivism...that way you can actually communicate your points.
Do you see why the entire community gave up positivism? It's a spiral of autism that doesn't allow for any statements to made. The positivists spent their entire career just trying to define things while the real philosophers (yes including the post-modernists) actually wrote stuff. That's why the entire postivist school is defunct. They spent decades working on just defining their terms and didn't prove a damn thing, than they realized they can't even define their terms using their own rules (the rule of no rationalism allowed).
There's a reason people went to post-positivism
Because abduction is superior.
>>431164
>why havn't you accepted the philosophical position most compatible with science? Positivism
because there is nothing accomplished by this position.
>>431408
empiricism has nothing to do with its bastardization by the rationalist.
>positivism
>hypothesis
>deductive
