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.
