Logical content and empirical significance
| Abstract | Logical Positivism, could not be said to be au courant as a philosophical movement.1 Indeed not only is the movement no longer in existence, it's projects are no longer central to philosophical investigations, even to the investigations of those who specialize in the philosophy of science. If Positivism has been making a comeback it is primarily as an object of historical inquiry, perhaps as a means to answering the question of how we got from there (our forefathers' primary philosophical interests and presuppositions) to here (our own current philosophical interests and presuppositions). The historical study of Positivism is indeed a worthwhile pursuit. However I think we still have room for a genuine inquiry into the possibility of completing at least some of the Positivists' projects. To borrow one of Carnap's most famous metaphors; besides the external project of asking what motivated the Positivists, what were their influences and basic presumptions, and what influence did they have, we can ask the internal question of how might their projects be completed. In attempting to complete some of those projects we may need recourse to methods, for instance, new types of logical constructions, that were unavailable to the Positivists. Such recourse will be legitimate as long as the methods are of a kind with those employed by the Positivists themselves. The Logical Positivists of course had many different projects that one might consider worthy of pursuit. Amongst the most prominent of these are the construction of a verificationist account of meaning, a criterion for demarcating science from metaphysics, various accounts of confirmation, and accounts of the status and nature of logical, mathematical, and scientific truths. Often these projects, for reasons good and bad, are run together by both the Positivists and their critics. To find what is worth preserving in Positivism one sometimes needs to tease them apart. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,865 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesThomas E. Uebel & Alan W. Richardson (eds.) (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism. Cambridge University Press.
George A. Reisch (2005). How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science: To the Icy Slopes of Logic. Cambridge University Press.
Richard F. Kitchener (2004). Logical Positivism, Naturalistic Epistemology, and the Foundations of Psychology. Behavior and Philosophy 32 (1):37 - 54.
Larry Laudan (1986). Methodology's Prospects. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:347 - 354.
Michael Friedman (1995). Poincaré's Conventionalism and the Logical Positivists. Foundations of Science 1 (2).
Syed A. Rahim (1990). Logical Positivism and Metaphysics: A Defence of Metaphysics Against the Logical Positivists' Criticisms. Rahim Publishers.
Steve Fuller (2006). Review Essay: The Philosophical Buck Stops Here. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 36 (3):355-366.
Michael Friedman (1999). Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge University Press.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads22 ( #57,056 of 556,803 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,847 of 556,803 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
