David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
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||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Ken Gemes (2006). Bootstrapping and Content Parts. Erkenntnis 64 (3):345 - 370.
Similar books and articles
Thomas 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):299-314.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads28 ( #90,445 of 1,696,586 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #186,867 of 1,696,586 )
How can I increase my downloads?