Why are these so many logical positivists and scientism supporters around these days? What happened? Are we re-running the 20th century but with a different random seed and the tech BS parameter set higher?
-
-
You argue he was. Technically he had the term critical rationalist coined for him. But his model of the relation of theory to evidence is not a radical departure from the Vienna Circle's. Both derive H as an atomistic observation statement from a theoretical language.
-
Sorry, you *could* argue he was. (You obviously didn't want to!)
-
What I mean is that Popper falls within the Humean strand of analytic philosophy of his time. The best knowledge is empirical; hypotheses can be deduced automatically from theory; we have no need for innate concepts; only concepts that can be tested/verified matter.
-
It looks a lot like logical empiricism (ie positivism). It differs by advocating falsification instead of verification; using modus tollens instead of modus ponens; and giving a higher statues to less probable rather than more probable hypotheses. But it's in the same system
-
It's not until Quine and Sellars that you see a turn away from this Humean framework in analytic philosophy.
-
Basically I want to say I think you were right the first time.
-
Only accidentally!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Imo, a lot of people are very new to philosophy/discourse - there was never much education about such stuff (at least in the UK, dunno about where else) for ordinary people, who are now finding themselves in heavily discourse led society through social media.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.