Where did logical positivism go wrong?
everywhere
Where did it go right?
>>7498755
logical positivism, much like marxism, is a jewish mindtrap matrix system. it is wrong by design, it was created to distract you and make you serve the interests of a shady cabal.
>>7498773
My high school gf said we could transcend solipsism (not the way she'd put it) through rigorous scientific testing.
Stemlords are literal retards who have been trained to follow a series of rules- they're the human equivalent of oxen. It's amazing.
Popper btfo verificationism and no one has been able to salvage the remains of logical positivism since
>>7498820
thank you
>>7498818
I take that back, actually, oxen are smart cows. It's more like stemlords are oxen to our humans.
>>7498773
>mfw this picture is my brother in law with whom I'll share the bedroom during the holidays
hold me lads
>if i can't see it it's bullshit
>calling this a "philosophy"
>>7498872
image the potential before you. Cave in his entire world view simply by being slightly subversive.
Hide one of his socks while he is sleeping, just unroll it into his other sock (double sock) and see if he notices when he puts it on. He will look around forever for his second sock, never realizing he is wearing it already on the same foot. Then, this realization will slowly eat away at him for the remaining day, as he questions question questions.
Mention to him off hand that you would like to learn a little bit more about atheism and if there's one reference text he can point you to, something like a bible. If he mentioned contemporary things say you're more interested in the history of it, and want to really learn from the beginning. If he mentions any philosopher he just BTFO himself, exploit his lack of knowledge on the topic, until he realises his dogmatic views are baseless.
As you are drinking a glass of water, say how strange it is that you are holding the glass, the glass is holding the water, and the water is holding nothing. Exclaim that by going deeper into it, you just ended up with nothing.
>>7499364
Zen trolling is a new high anon, you should try to make a book or a manifesto or essay or something about it.
>>7499364
The water is holding a lot though. There are all sorts of minerals and chemicals in trace amounts that are suspended in the water. Knowing that is essential to water filtration, a practical application of this knowledge that saves lives. Understanding the physical nature of water has all sorts of other applications. So quite contrary to your point, "Going deeper" yields knowledge that could potentially be applied. If you don't understand the importance of scientific query then you're far dumber than the hypothetical person you're thinking about (as you don't actually know the person he is talking about).
It ends in solipsism. All the LP's realized this by 1930's, including Carnap. Various modes of materialism ensued and have remained, which is even worse than solipsism.
Protocol statement: thread appears awesome
If you can't prove it then you're dumb to believe it.
End of discussion.
Philosophers spend a lot of time trying to avoid providing proof for their assertions, but without evidence they are only claims. No matter how compelling the claim is, unless you can demonstrate it to be true then it's really just good rhetoric, not good science.
Get fukt, alchemists.
>>7500356
The complete lack of comprehension and vanity of those people is off the charts, Christ.
>>7500356
the funny thing is that youre just outlining the logical positivists position (proof is god) but ignoring the shortcomings of the position (proofs require a base level of truth, an axiom or axioms taken on faith)
>>7500356
Prove I can prove anything, faggot
>>7500356
Popperians really are retarded.
>>7500356
>can't prove anything non-observable
>basic constituents of the universe are vastly beyond the power of our instruments and thus unobservable
"I CAN'T UNDERSTAND SHAKESPEARE THEREFORE ITS NONSENSE"
>>7500356
>love doesn't exist because it's all subjective and a brain scan can't prove what we're seeing is the neuronal activity corresponding with love IF I CANT SEE IT IT DOESNT EXIST IF I CANT SEE IT IT DOESNT EXIST
>>7500373
But nothing they said was Popperian/Falsificationist, it was all about positive proof.
>>7500307
No!!! Not solipsism!!!!!!!!
Same place all schools of thought went wrong
>>7500390
but we can.
>>7498755
What does Lewis have to do with your shit question?
>not posting the true king of the revival of metaphysics
