Some problems with the Verification theory of Logical Positivism:
I’m not one much for labels, but they do serve a purpose, and help in communication.
So I am going to try attach meaning to the label of Logical Positivism. Others know more.
It seems to me be a combination of Rationalism, and Empiricism, which have both fallen out of favor as single tracked and too limiting. Together, some people consider them a knockout, fool proof winner, or at least as good as it’s going to get. After I wrote that I checked Wikipedia, it is seems they agree with me.
Logical Positivism is a theory of philosophy whose primary goal seems to be to determining how to judge if statements are meaningful or not, based on certain criteria. This verification theory is a large part of their belief system.
Some belief systems have a primary pillar of this theory, and for some, the only pillar. It makes them feel secure and give them comfort (editorial).
This theory of philosophy holds that statements about facts ( actual occurrences), must be verified by the system of logical positivism or they are not meaningful.
There are many forms of Logical Positivism, but some elements are common to all forms.
In order for a statement about a fact to be meaningful, it must be verified by empirical and/or, rational means.
Most of us would recognize this as the scientific approach, or the scientific method.
Philosophy tells us that facts are actual occurrences, and may be known, or unknown.
Logical Positivism goes an extra step, and adds the condition that if know, it must be verified by empirical/rational means, or it is not a meaningful statement, that is to say, it is not a true statement about a fact.
No scientifically convincing evidence, and no truthful statement about a fact.
Logical Positivism is ideally suited for the Atheist, so most Atheists are strong Logical Positivists.
I find this theory helpful in the scientific endeavors, but lacking for many aspects of a valid, complete belief system.
Many scientists are Logical Positivists at work, but something else when the work day is done.
Terms like religionist, mystic, spiritualist come to mind.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I see the Logical Positivist as a person inside a building, with many rooms, and no doors or windows to the outside.
Their world is limited to what they can see and study, inside the building.
A Logical Positivist could write a book about the taste of mangos, without ever eating a mango.
They could interview and study others who have eaten mangos, collect the data, make the list, do the charts, and end up with a good verbal and pictorial account of what can be said about the taste of mangos. A great deal of factual information, I am sure.
I’m not saying they might not want to take a bite themselves, but really, that is not necessary for the Logical Positivist.
If I told them I did not need their book, because I had eaten a mango, they might quickly respond by saying, “Prove it!”.
If I gave descriptions that were like the ones in the book, they might accuse me of cheating, and reading the book first. Simply repeating what was in the book is not evidence I had actually eaten one, if anything, it was evidence I had read the book. My statements were not meaningful, because they could not be verified by empirical/rational means.
My statements would be considered false, not factual, I had not eaten mangos, since I did not have the proper evidence or verification
I could bring family members, who say they watched me eat a mango. Useless hearsay to the Logical Positivist.
I show them photos, they want proof I did not photoshop them.
They had no acceptable verification I had eaten a mango, so my statements were the same as false, even if they happened to be true.
My statement would not be meaningful, because I lacked proper empirical, rational evidence.
~ ~
Most people have a little Logical Positivism in their belief system, but also others theories of what it takes for meaning statements of facts, other verification theories.
These pillars will support the belief system when Logical Positivism is weakest, areas that are totally outside the building, outside of empirical or rational explanations.
There is no way for the strong Logical Positivist to investigate any mystical, or supernatural events, as they ae non existent, by the rules of Logical Positivism.
I find experiences to be more factual than some actual statements. The word ‘statement’ is often used for none verbal experiences. (eg:“His absence at the awards ceremony made quite a statement.”)
The strong Logical Positivist relegates accounts of personal experiences as being too subjective, even if millions of people say they experienced such and such, if there is no empirical evidence, no truthful statements about facts.
~ ~ ~
It seem some Atheists believe that religionists should play by the rules of Logical Positivism, accept them, and that require going beyond the basic philosophical meaning of the term ‘fact’, and require their type of verification.
I see no need to deny my own belief system, when I believe theirs is inferior.
I see no need to verify my ‘mystical’ beliefs, to verify my acceptance and experience of intuited knowledge, by their rules.
I do not justify my belief system by their rules, anymore than they justify their belief system by my rules.
There are many classical, common criticisms that I did not mention. Others might.
One common competing theory of philosophy well suited to religionists, is Eschatological Verification.
I’m not one much for labels, but they do serve a purpose, and help in communication.
So I am going to try attach meaning to the label of Logical Positivism. Others know more.
It seems to me be a combination of Rationalism, and Empiricism, which have both fallen out of favor as single tracked and too limiting. Together, some people consider them a knockout, fool proof winner, or at least as good as it’s going to get. After I wrote that I checked Wikipedia, it is seems they agree with me.
Logical Positivism is a theory of philosophy whose primary goal seems to be to determining how to judge if statements are meaningful or not, based on certain criteria. This verification theory is a large part of their belief system.
Some belief systems have a primary pillar of this theory, and for some, the only pillar. It makes them feel secure and give them comfort (editorial).
This theory of philosophy holds that statements about facts ( actual occurrences), must be verified by the system of logical positivism or they are not meaningful.
There are many forms of Logical Positivism, but some elements are common to all forms.
In order for a statement about a fact to be meaningful, it must be verified by empirical and/or, rational means.
Most of us would recognize this as the scientific approach, or the scientific method.
Philosophy tells us that facts are actual occurrences, and may be known, or unknown.
Logical Positivism goes an extra step, and adds the condition that if know, it must be verified by empirical/rational means, or it is not a meaningful statement, that is to say, it is not a true statement about a fact.
No scientifically convincing evidence, and no truthful statement about a fact.
Logical Positivism is ideally suited for the Atheist, so most Atheists are strong Logical Positivists.
I find this theory helpful in the scientific endeavors, but lacking for many aspects of a valid, complete belief system.
Many scientists are Logical Positivists at work, but something else when the work day is done.
Terms like religionist, mystic, spiritualist come to mind.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I see the Logical Positivist as a person inside a building, with many rooms, and no doors or windows to the outside.
Their world is limited to what they can see and study, inside the building.
A Logical Positivist could write a book about the taste of mangos, without ever eating a mango.
They could interview and study others who have eaten mangos, collect the data, make the list, do the charts, and end up with a good verbal and pictorial account of what can be said about the taste of mangos. A great deal of factual information, I am sure.
I’m not saying they might not want to take a bite themselves, but really, that is not necessary for the Logical Positivist.
If I told them I did not need their book, because I had eaten a mango, they might quickly respond by saying, “Prove it!”.
If I gave descriptions that were like the ones in the book, they might accuse me of cheating, and reading the book first. Simply repeating what was in the book is not evidence I had actually eaten one, if anything, it was evidence I had read the book. My statements were not meaningful, because they could not be verified by empirical/rational means.
My statements would be considered false, not factual, I had not eaten mangos, since I did not have the proper evidence or verification
I could bring family members, who say they watched me eat a mango. Useless hearsay to the Logical Positivist.
I show them photos, they want proof I did not photoshop them.
They had no acceptable verification I had eaten a mango, so my statements were the same as false, even if they happened to be true.
My statement would not be meaningful, because I lacked proper empirical, rational evidence.
~ ~
Most people have a little Logical Positivism in their belief system, but also others theories of what it takes for meaning statements of facts, other verification theories.
These pillars will support the belief system when Logical Positivism is weakest, areas that are totally outside the building, outside of empirical or rational explanations.
There is no way for the strong Logical Positivist to investigate any mystical, or supernatural events, as they ae non existent, by the rules of Logical Positivism.
I find experiences to be more factual than some actual statements. The word ‘statement’ is often used for none verbal experiences. (eg:“His absence at the awards ceremony made quite a statement.”)
The strong Logical Positivist relegates accounts of personal experiences as being too subjective, even if millions of people say they experienced such and such, if there is no empirical evidence, no truthful statements about facts.
~ ~ ~
It seem some Atheists believe that religionists should play by the rules of Logical Positivism, accept them, and that require going beyond the basic philosophical meaning of the term ‘fact’, and require their type of verification.
I see no need to deny my own belief system, when I believe theirs is inferior.
I see no need to verify my ‘mystical’ beliefs, to verify my acceptance and experience of intuited knowledge, by their rules.
I do not justify my belief system by their rules, anymore than they justify their belief system by my rules.
There are many classical, common criticisms that I did not mention. Others might.
One common competing theory of philosophy well suited to religionists, is Eschatological Verification.
