I.12 Logical Positivism + Popper

Logical positivism

Formed by the Vienna Circle (group of german-speaking mathematicians and philosophers in vienna)

Goal: finding solid foundation for science

Opposed to 19th century idealism (Plato + Descartes): set of metaphysical perspectives to prove that reality is = mind, spirit or consciousness + reality = mental construct + ideas = highest form of reality

Arguments = similar to Hume and Comte

(extension of idea that we can know the world through science)

Symbolic logic = very important

→ “all of reality can be written down in a symbolic manner

→ if x = table, then x1 = brown table and x2 = white table

→ can make a function/ general assumption out of anything

→ linked to logic: can form factual arguments to explain world

Core features:

1. Knowledge = only from experience (also empiricism)

2. Scientific world-conception possible through application of logical analysis

Goal in philo: clarification of problems using logical analysis

→ philosophy is supposed to explain problems using logic + symbols

→ if statement cannot be linked to experience = not legitimate

Rely on induction (particular observations → general conclusion)

→ allows unified science + defeat of metaphysics

→ all knowledge grounded in experience

Demarcation Principle

How can we differentiate between scientific claims and pseudo-scientific claims?

→ Marxism

→ National Socialism

→ Psychoanalysis

Principle of verification

→ every scientific statement: 1 quality in common → tests can determnine whether they’re true or fasle

→ EInstein = right

→ Freud = wrong bc can’t do studies regarding your subconsciousness

Popper

Like Hume

Skeptic

Very critical of logical positivism

Critic of Hume’s induction

→ says it‘s impossible bc scientists rely on deduction to interpret their

experiments and are therefore biased

→ future = not predictable

→ general laws = based on observations

→ what happens when a new observation disagrees w the theory

→ observation of the world is already influenced by the theory

→ if you start with deduction (general conclusion), how do you get to end results? (Answer: induction)

→ ex.: what came first, the chicken or the egg

New principle for science: Falsification theory

→ statement is only scientifically true if it can be falsified

→ ex.: Freud‘s Ödipus complex isn‘t a scientific statement bc you can‘t falsify smt that‘s subconscious

Science = not about finding ultimate truth but it is a process