Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on the assumptions of logical positivism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In 1936 Alfred Jules Ayer published a book named, Language, Truth, and Logic. At the time of its publication, it was understood to be the major thesis of Logical Positivism (Macdonald). In order to understand the Verification Principle, one must first become somewhat familiar with Logical Positivism. Logical Positivism is a school of philosophic thought that combines empiricism, the idea that observational evidence is indispensable for knowledge of the world, with a version of rationalism incorporating mathematical and logico-linguistic constructs and deductions in epistemology, the study of knowledge (Log Pos).
The Verification Principle states that a statement is cognitively meaningful if and only if it is either analytic or in principle empirically verifiable (Dr. Reilly - Notes). In this sense, cognitively meaningful is defined as either true or false. Analytic is defined as either mathematical or logical, and empirically verifiable is accepted if the statement can be proven either true or false on the basis of experience. So, a verificationist is someone who adheres to the verification principle proposed by A.J. Ayer in Language, Truth and Logic (Verificationism). The great debate amongst verificationist was whether the empirical observation itself must be possible in practice or just in principle.
If the verification Principle is true it has many different implications for ethics. The Principle of Induction is rendered cognitively meaningless by the Verification Principle. The Principle of Induction states that casual relationships that have been observed in the past will continue in the same way always and everywhere (Dr. Reilly). Back in the 1950’s and 1960’s, it was very uncommon to get a divorce. Families...
... middle of paper ...
...When Hume developed his Principle of the Uniformity of Nature, he noticed that we tend to believe that things behave in a regular manner; i.e. that patterns in the behavior of objects will persist into the future, and throughout the unobserved present (David Hume).
I truly believe that one day men will be able to birth children. Although God did not give males reproductive organs to give birth whose to say that it will never happen. Man has already achieved the knowledge to perform sex change operations, which is a major step in that direction. Whether we like it or not, science is already headed in that direction. Maybe one day, with the help from mother nature the laws of nature may evolve to allow men to do so. Right now, there is no way to travel into the future to see if that will occur, however I strongly believe it is a feasible observation to make.
However, David Hume, succeeds in objecting this argument by claiming that the experience is a necessary factor for understanding the creation of the universe. Lastly, I argued that Paley’s argument was not sufficient for proving God’s existence with the argument by design because we cannot assume the world will comply and work the way we wish
In this paper I discuss both Hume’s and Anscombe’s view on causation. I begin with Hume and his regularity theory; then I move onto Anscombe where I provide a rebuttal of Hume’s regularity theory, and later I explain how Hume would respond to Anscombe’s objection to Hume’s regularity theory.
The figure of David Hume looms large in the philosophical tradition of English-speaking countries; and his two famous analyses, of human apprehension and of causality, were the...
Hume supports his claim with two arguments. Firstly, he states that when we reflect on our thoughts, they always become simple ideas that we copied from a first-hand experience of something, thus the idea has been copie...
Russell, Paul. “Hume on Free Will.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, 14 December 2007.
hat for a belief to be true knowledge, it must be supported by evidence. Evidentialism also claims
Male Pregnancy by Dick Teresi and Kathleen McAuliffe support that the technology and the demand for male pregnancy will be possible in the future. They specifically state that, "Someday a man will have a baby". They have written this article in an attempt to show why they believe this will one day become accepted and widely practiced. However, I disagree with Teresi and McAuliffe. I feel male pregnancy will never be freely practiced or accepted by any means.
Bertrand Russell, one of the most influential philosophers of the modern age, argued extensively in his book, “The Problems of Philosophy”, that the belief in inductive reasoning is only rational on the grounds of its intrinsic evidence; it cannot be justified by an appeal to experience alone (Russell 1998). Inductive reasoning refers to a form of reasoning that constructs or assesses propositions that are generalizations of observations (Russell 1998). Inductive reasoning is thus, in simple terms, probabilistic. The premises of an inductive logical argument provide some degree of support for the conclusion, but that support is in no way definitive or conclusive (Browne, 2004). Yet even if one agrees with Russell and concludes that there are no rational justifications for the principle of induction in and of itself, one can still maintain that there is a pragmatic justification for maintaining a belief in the principle. Simply put, there are still perfectly sound reasons for behaving as if the principle of induction holds true, regardless of whether or not the principle itself is rationally justifiable (Browne, 2004). This type of justification can be used across many of the belief systems that we as human beings hold, even stretching to the playing field of religion. In this paper I will outline not only why it is pragmatically justifiable to believe in the principle of induction, but also why it is equally as justifiable to believe in an infinite God, regardless of whether or not deductive reasoning provides us with definitive support for such conclusions.
Hume distinguishes two categories into which “all the objects of human reason or enquiry” may be placed into: Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact (15). In regards to matters of fact, cause and effect seems to be the main principle involved. It is clear that when we have a fact, it must have been inferred...
In science, Hume recognized a problem with scientific causality. He saw science as being based on inductive reasoning, which results in generalized rules or principles.
... but one about reason, that it is not this, but habit, which forms the basis of our beliefs. While it may be the case that denying an empirical fact may not result in a contradiction, Hume seems to be suggesting that it would still be irrational to do so. That abstracting from events to laws is a rational, though inductive, act seems hard to deny. Thus, at best, Hume can only show that it is experience which first provides the matter for reason.
Hume contends that all human behavior is predictable given certain circumstances. Every nation, in any period of time, will have citizens that will act in a similar fashion to other nations, in any other period of time (53). Hume supports this idea by asserting that this is why the philosophy of human nature is possible. Spinoza has similar ideas about behavior but is more thorough in his analysis. Spinoza begins his critique from a naturalistic approach. He believes that the universal laws of nature give us an understanding of affects. Affects such as hate, anger, love, lust, happiness, and joy are all determined by nature. It is nature that affects the individual, not the individual affecting nature. Thus, nature affects everyone in a similar fashion and gives rise to similar ideas and feelings. From a naturalist perspective, the laws of nature can help understand the laws that govern
As a result of his previous focus on necessity in section VII, Hume’s tactic in this section is to repeat his thoughts on the nature of necessity. He begins by examining “what we are pleased to call physical necessity,” (Hume 526) and try to present an argument of how human actions are necessary (i.e. causally determined). According to Hume, there are laws in nature that are “actuated by necessary forces and that every natural effect is so precisely determined by the energy of its cause that no other effect, in such a particular circumstances, could possibly have resulted from it” (Hume 523). Hume a...
...h not justifiable enough to be relied. Even though the inductive reasoning has been a success in the determination of events and instances that have occurred in the past, philosophers still argue about its appropriateness, in the modern society (Earman, 2006, p.36). The problem of induction has been analyzed through various philosophical studies with the aim of finding a justifiable answer to the dilemma. The uncertainty of inductive reason forms the basis of myriad questions that engulf the justification of the approach. According to some philosophers, it is possible that some unknown phenomenon might occur, leading to justification with a known phenomenon. As aforementioned, falsification and irrationalism are some of the solutions to the induction problem. It is, therefore, imperative for individuals to falsify the beliefs through hypothesis and empirical testing.
Positivism is a research method that developed from the behavioral revolution, which sought to combine positivism and empiricism to politics (Halperin and Heath, 2012: 27). That is to say, this research approach is governed by natural law to observe, understand and to find meaning in the empirical world. This type of research seeks to answer two empirical questions, such as ‘what is out there’ and ‘what do we call it’ (Gerring, 2001: 156). Positivism is only interested in phenomenons that can be observed through our senses. Thus, positivism is interested in social realities that can be observed and measured by the scientific method (Halperin and Heath, 2012: 29). Furthermore, positivism believes that the gathering of evidence through scientific method can create knowledge and laws, known as induction (Halperin and Heath, 2012: 27). That is to say, evidence can be verified and later generalized then applied to multiple contexts. A positivist would investigate empirical questions that assume how the world works through the accuracy of a probable truth (Gerring, 2001: 155).