>mfw when philosophically uneducated people use the "positivism" straw man against every criticism of "philosophy of science"
What are things that annoy you in philosophy debates?
>>859746
>philosophically uneducated
thats just an ad hom. your argument is wrong now
>morality
>>859746
>mfw when philosophically uneducated people use the "positivism" straw man against every criticism of "philosophy of science"
Can you give an example of this? You mean the focus on empirical evidence?
>>859928
I know some guy is fucking with it and making it influenced by Hentai.
>>860152
Just yesterday I had an internet debate with a self-proclaimed defender of philosophy. Obviously he was as uneducated on the matters of philosophy as he was on the matters of science. I explained to him why the so called "philosophy of science" was useless bullshit from both points of view, i.e. within science as well as within philosophy. Instead of admitting defeat, he just called me a "positivist", apparently without knowing what that word actually means.
>>859753
>person types 50 posts without providing evidence to support their claims
>ask for evidence
>FUCK YOU
>>859746
I'm not sure I follow what you're talking about. What's the positivism straw man.
> Yea well Kuhn a shit
> You just say that because you're a positivist
> Yes I am
> lol go home Comte bloody sociologists think they know a thing about science positivism is almost 200 years old how outdated can you be after all it's the current year
>>860174
Was it on 4chan?
>>860192
Of course.
>>860174
Let's start by listening to your definition of "positivist", anon.
Then let's continue with your definition of science and your definition of phylosophy.
I'll be evaluating you.
>>860205
>Let's start by listening to your definition of "positivist", anon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
>Then let's continue with your definition of science
Using the scientific method.
>and your definition of phylosophy.
That one's tricky. Not even philosophists can properly define their own field.
>>860205
>phylosophy
Making shit up.
>>860201
>I had an internet debate with a self-proclaimed defender of philosophy
>On 4chan
Damn son you got on such a legit debate with a legit phylsopher. Not only that, you evaluated him like an "uneducated". You're a specially kind of smart man, anon. You're very special.
Let's give you a big aplause so you can leave.
Why does positivism get shit on? It seems to me that people should try and gather stats about the world we live in.
>>860214
Sorry, i want to ear YOUR definition. If i wanted to see what was on wikipedia i could have done that myself.
>That one's tricky. Not even philosophists can properly define their own field.
I don't care about what philosophist thinks. I want to ear your definition.
Pretty lame so far to be honest. You're failing.
>>860214
Logical positivism is one form of positivism, I'm not sure if that term really encompasses the whole field.
>Using the scientific method
Which scientific method?
>>860220
>phylosophy is making shit up
>scientific method was crafted by empirist phylosophy
>science and pragmatism are the pillars of our technological, capitalist society
>We're crafted by society
>We are made up
kind of true anon.
>>860222
trips of insight
>>860235
>If i wanted to see what was on wikipedia i could have done that myself.
"My" definition coincides with the commonly accepted definition which you can find on wikipedia.
>I want to ear your definition.
Be prepared for disappointment. You don't always get what you want.
>>860239
>Which scientific method?
THE scientific method
>>860248
Could you make an argument to support these claims?
>>860256
Which scientific method?
>Be prepared for disappointment
Why don't you people just stay on /sci/ and /lit/?
>>860261
>>860228
That's a very minor part of logical positivism that it in no way is unique among other philosophical traditions.
Logical positivism is a meme philosophy, or rather a philosophical project, abandoned by the very reasons mentioned in the wikipedia article. The most common and most simple objection is that it's self-refuting by making the metaphysical claim that metaphysical claims doesn't mean anything.
>>860256
>chicken don't want to expose himself to be judged by others and relies on outside source to stand for him
>feels he can judge others by calling them "uneducated"
Im not desapointed, that's pretty much what i expected from you.
You fail, chicken.
>>860256
> THE scientific method
> He think there's a single scientific method
Nigga that's kawaii as fuck.
>>860279
>the metaphysical claim that metaphysical claims doesn't mean anything.
How is that claim "metaphysical"?
>>860276
Thanks. What is science?
>>860287
Let me rephrase it; "all claims about metaphysics is nonsense" is in itself a claim about metaphysics, and thus nonsense.
>>860291
Empirist phylosophy on practice
>>860293
No, it's a meta-claim about metaphysics.
>>860287
It refers to metaphysics.
>>860294
What does that mean?
>>860298
Only on a meta level. It is not a claim _within_ metaphysics, but a claim _about_ metaphysics.
>>860299
You just contradicted on your own post.
Read a little uneducated faggot.
At least i keked.
>>860312
It seems you didn't understand my post.
>>860305
Right. You see the problem.
>>860326
No, I don't.
>>860304
Empirism merges on the opossite side of idealism. Unlike idealism, it relies on our senses, our experience. This phylosophy crafts the scientific method under the name of experiments (derivative from experience). Without empirist philosophy "science" and the "scientific method" has no epistemologic leg to stand.
That's what i meant.
>>860333
>Without empirist philosophy "science" and the "scientific method" has no epistemologic leg to stand.
This is wrong though. Science also makes use of non-empirical methods like logical conclusions.
Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-empirical_method
>>860295
That's just false, it isn't a meta-claim but a claim. And even if you'd argue that it's metametaphysical claim about metaphysics you'd still have problems because logical positivism held that even the metametaphysical claim is nonsense, so you'd end up with an endless regression.
The reason as of why they throw out metametaphysics as well is because logical positivism hold that everything that can't be empirically verified is nonsense, yet it's a position that in and by itself can be empirically verified.
Patricians debate with the aim of learning more
Plebians debate with the aim of salting people off
"All models invoking a metaphysical element are worth less than an otherwise equivalent model not invoking said element."
Let's start from there.
>>860346
Your reasoning is faulty. The claim "Every claim within metaphysics is nonsense" is not a claim within metaphysics and thus cannot be used self-referential to refute itself.
>>860279
That's a semantic claim, not metaphysical. And logical positivism wasn't abandoned because it defeats itself.
>>860333
>Empirism merges on the opossite side of idealism. Unlike idealism, it relies on our senses, our experience.
You've no idea what you're talking about. A lot of empiricists assume matter exist, something that the most radical empiricists deny because it assumes there's something more than sensory impression and minds experiencing them.
>>860360
I don't think you responded to the right person because I went ahead and explained why even assuming it's not a claim within metaphysics are troubling.
>>860333
I think I've seen you make a lot of posts here and on /lit/ in the past. None of the terms you use mean what you think they mean or are what you type them as. Empiricism is not contrasted with idealism, nor idealism with science, all the time. These posts are nonsense. I would seriously consider getting an education. You're factually incorrect about the historical meanings of these terms and you're logically incorrect about the consequences of these doctrines' truth or falsehood.
>>860329
It refers to metaphysics. Which scientific method bothers with metaphysics?
>>860345
> These are common to both science and mathematics, and do not include experimental method.
yeah son this is not positive science.
>>860381
pls correct me, then.
Let's see what you mean.
And no, i don't post here usually.
>>860391
Yea well there's nothing wrong with assuming my dick is in your mom, after all it's an assumption so it doesn't require any proofs. :^)
>>860391
>There is still nothing wrong with the assumption that metaphysical claims are nonsense
It isn't a scientific position. It's a philosophical position. Show me where in the definitions of 'science' offered ITT there is anything about metaphysics.
>>860392
I honestly don't know where to start, just read some books. You just seem to be completely wrong. Maybe it's just a language barrier but the terminology you're using is odd.
>>860406
i've read books.
English is not my native lenguaje but still, ask me anything you have doubt. I have no problem answering to you.
>>860406
Science would simply test metaphysical claims for validity. If it cannot be used to make falsifiable predictions, it isn't useful.
So then, we could rephrase the claim as "there has yet to be a metaphysical claim that has yielded useful predictions." This is not a claim about metaphysics so much as a claim within science that refers to findings about metaphysics. This is no more of a problem than saying "there has yet to be a psychic claim that has yielded useful predictions."
>>860406
>It isn't a scientific position. It's a philosophical position.
And how is that a problem?
>>860426
>If it cannot be used to make falsifiable predictions, it isn't useful.
But this wasn't a position held by the logical positivists. Verificationism was their thing.
>>860426
How would science test whether numbers exist?
>>860434
It is the claim I am making, and I have been accused of being a positivist so often I have to assume there is some overlap here.
>>860440
There are different kinds of positivists. For example, positivism was a school of thought associated with Auguste Comte that focused on encouraging social progress. Logical positivism was a European philosophical movement that tried to move away from traditional European philosophy in favor of a more scientifically rigorous approach based on new and more scientific logical systems that were being produced after the 18th century.
>>860450
And my point is that Comte was not one of the latter
>>860436
First, a given team would arbitrarily come up with an operational definition of "numbers" and "exist". Then, under those arbitrary definitions, they would test whether "numbers" "existing" resulted in falsifiable predictions. If yes, then for those definitions, numbers exist. If not, for those definitions, numbers do not. Then other people would criticize the operstional definitions and the methods used to test them. Some pepope working under other definitions and other methods would come to another conclusion. Over time, whichever set of definitions and conclusions produced useful predictions would be held as true provisionally.
In this case, numbers may or may not exist externally, but assuming they do does result in useful predictions that could not be achieved without assuming they do, thus for all practical intents and purposes they exist.
>>860444
For starters i will state all of thoese are epistemological postures, so each one of them answers diferently to the question: How do we know what is truth? I will be brief,
>Rationalism
Reason is the way the knowledge
Thinkers: Descartes
>Empirism
"Experience is the way the knowledge. Consciousness is after matter.
Thinkers: Locke, Hume
>Idealism
Similiar to reason. Everything is mental and one can never knowledge truth beyond himself. Consciousness is before matter.
Historical relation:
They disagree about the fundamental views of the universe. Idealism is more useful to religion and empirism more useful to science.
Your turn anon.
Same questions.
>>860491
>so each one of them answers diferently to the question: How do we know what is truth?
What does that have to do with what I asked you?
>Rationalism
The truth is accessible a priori, i.e., without the use of the senses. Rationalism is a form of idealism, but not the only form of idealism; many German idealists can hardly be called rationalists, for example.
>Empirism
Not a word, this is what confuses me. Stop using this word. "Empiricism" is objectively the correct term. Empiricists hold that knowledge can be acquired a priori.
>Idealism
Reality is ultimately mental in some capacity. If there is matter, ideal reality takes ontological priority over material reality.
>>860521
So we agree on everything. Sorry i didn't know i was typing empiricism wrong lol. thanks you for correcting me.
>What does that have to do with what I asked you?
Introduction i supose.
>>860357
What if I debate with the aim of salting people off in the hope of learning more?
You know, like Socrates.
>>860491
>>Empirism
> Locke, Hume
> Consciousness is after matter.
I like how you went out of your way to ignore George Berkeley. Especial since Berkeley, Locke and Hume makes up a trio considered extra prominent among the British empiricists, and how Berkeley wouldn't agree consciousness is after matter since he doesn't believe matter exist at all.
>>860293
>Let me rephrase it; "all claims about metaphysics is nonsense" is in itself a claim about metaphysics, and thus nonsense.
Granted that ordinarily, if your argument is nonsense, this is a problem, but when your contention is that all arguments of this type are nonsense, it's exactly what you would expect, _if_, in fact, all metaphysical claims are nonsensical.
>>860556
Could you explain the logical principles that lead you to that conclusion? Not the metaphysical ones, please, only the logical ones.
>>860406
>It isn't a scientific position. It's a philosophical position.
I don't know why you expect or want a scientific explanation for a concept that only exists within philosophy. It's a little like asking for a theological interpretation of the Higgs boson.
>>860566
>I don't know why you expect or want a scientific explanation for a concept that only exists within philosophy
My point is that I don't, I'm trying to point out that it's not possible to dismiss positivism using pure science.
>>860436
By finding instances of them in the world, in the form of representations using numerals and other symbols, and as patterns of activity within human brains, and as shared "common sense" assumptions within cultures / civilisations.
>>860556
>_if_, in fact, all metaphysical claims are nonsensical.
Well obviously, but I don't see why that's relevant since we're talking about logical positivism. Their position on metaphysics was very clear.
>>860491
Idealism REQUIRES theology, it doesn't work without a god to be the "Universal observer". Well I guess it does work without it, but then you're just a solipsist and so can be ignored.
Rationalism seems like a good bet and of course it has given us pretty much all of philosophy and mathematics. However, it consistently leads us wrong when investigating the underlying laws of reality, as well as leading to seemingly unsolvable paradoxes of various kinds.
Empiricists do not actually have to assume reality precedes perception, only that there is some kind of consistent and reliable relationship between reality "as-it-is" and reality "as-it-seems-to-us". It is the only approach that works despite our preconceptions and the intuitions evolution has favored, that so often lead us astray in science and that lead to so many of the seeming conundrums of philosophers.
>>860291
Improved common sense
>>859746
>lol, we've science now. philosophy is dead/useless.
I hate these plebians.
>>860276
What of naturalistic observation? Not every hypothesis can be tested in a lab.
