Logical positivism is a philosophical standpoint, whereby you agree that there are two - and only two – ways of determining whether a statement is correct.
“You can verify them by empirical observation, the way that scientists do. Or you can verify them by logical analysis, the way that mathematicians do. Statements that can’t be verified either way are neither true nor false. They’re meaningless” – Gary Hayden in ‘You Kant make it up!’
This does appear to make sense, after all if you can’t prove something because you have no real evidence for it, and it can’t be empirically observed or logically analysed then you’ve made it up. There is no alternative.
According to the English philosopher A. J. Ayer (1910 – 1989), these statements merely express emotion and this is known as emotivism or, colloquially, as Boo-Hooray theory.
“If someone says ‘you ought to tell the truth’ she is not making a factual statement. She is merely expressing an emotional response to the idea of telling the truth, and perhaps trying to elicit a similar emotional response in her listeners. She is, in effect, saying ‘Truth telling – hooray!” – Gary Hayden in ‘You Kant make it up!’
All this basically means that moral judgements and ethical statements are meaningless. Are they all based around an evolved, working view imposed externally by society and only appear to be moral because that is what we’ve learnt growing up? Feel free to debate Logical Positivism in the comments below.
“You can verify them by empirical observation, the way that scientists do. Or you can verify them by logical analysis, the way that mathematicians do. Statements that can’t be verified either way are neither true nor false. They’re meaningless” – Gary Hayden in ‘You Kant make it up!’
This does appear to make sense, after all if you can’t prove something because you have no real evidence for it, and it can’t be empirically observed or logically analysed then you’ve made it up. There is no alternative.
According to the English philosopher A. J. Ayer (1910 – 1989), these statements merely express emotion and this is known as emotivism or, colloquially, as Boo-Hooray theory.
“If someone says ‘you ought to tell the truth’ she is not making a factual statement. She is merely expressing an emotional response to the idea of telling the truth, and perhaps trying to elicit a similar emotional response in her listeners. She is, in effect, saying ‘Truth telling – hooray!” – Gary Hayden in ‘You Kant make it up!’
All this basically means that moral judgements and ethical statements are meaningless. Are they all based around an evolved, working view imposed externally by society and only appear to be moral because that is what we’ve learnt growing up? Feel free to debate Logical Positivism in the comments below.
Good day Astro Steve,
ReplyDeleteNo, morality and ethics is probably one of the largest fact that every human being has to comes to terms with during their individual lives. It comes from inside each and every one of us and it is the individuals choice how to participate in the society that they live in.
I'm from the United States of America were the idea of the self evidence of this reality were very obvious and incorporated in the United States Declaration of Independence.
Good luck,
Stephen
ps Where are you from?
That Physicaloxy, everything is so well prepared for me. They really know what I need.
ReplyDeleteRecently, I had the honor of working collaboratively with the astrophysics lab at Case Western Reserve University in taking a series of deep space images. The field had been having difficulty in filtering out the static found prevalent thus far. The resultant photos which interpret what telescopes were seeing, seem to be causing quite a stir in both the fine art and astronomy circles.
ReplyDeletePlease refer to my LinkedIn profile, for further biographical data. -Marc Breed, Fine Artist