Quote from: Verbatim on June 27, 2016, 10:15:43 PM

because it's the only premise through which we can have a coherent basis for reality

please verify this empirically.

well, i can't; i can only ask that you present a coherent basis for reality that does not hinge on empiricism

failing that, there's no reason for me to assume that positivism isn't all there is

define coherency

knowledge that is either a priori or a posteriori; nothing else, and nothing in between

why should we care about anything else

why should we care about those things in the first place?

because they make sense--they can be understood, comprehended, and experienced

and they have utility--that is, we can use this knowledge to create real, tangible, and valuable things that increase our quality of existence--that alone sounds like a pretty damn good reason to care

whatever else you're trying to suggest beyond positivism has no utility, because we can't grasp it--why even acknowledge it

I'm inclined to think nothing can be truly understood, and what empirical science has said about our brains really makes me lean harder that way.

i would agree, but of what importance is it, anyway, that we "truly" understand anything?

as far as i'm concerned, there's a "good enough" clause--and we've reached it in many respects

while you assert that what is "empirically" real may not be really real; i would argue that it doesn't even matter

it's something fun to think about when you're in the shower--nothing i'd lend any serious consideration towards

Value doesn't exist in a positivist world.

by "value," i mean the difference between positive and negative sensation

negative sensations like pain are derived from sensory experience; this is positivist

Not true. Logical positivism is, rightfully, dead.

didn't you say you stopped using drugs, or something

in modern physics, logical positivism is a fundamental

the only issue i see is that some may use it as a blanket for the is/ought gap

i don't; hume was a stupid motherfucker for proposing that

in modern physics, logical positivism is a fundamental

In modern physics (and mathematics), logical positivism is a defunct and impossible means of expressing universal truths. It's reductionism for the sake of reductionism and adds nothing to the field.

OT: You shouldn't. Trying to codify philosophy with the scientific method is asinine.

Quote from: HrfulTurkie on June 28, 2016, 10:13:11 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 28, 2016, 07:11:56 AM

in modern physics, logical positivism is a fundamental

In modern physics (and mathematics), logical positivism is a defunct and impossible means of expressing universal truths. It's reductionism for the sake of reductionism and adds nothing to the field.

see, i always understood the concept to be synonymous with empiricism--and that's sort of the angle i was arguing from

you're not about to tell me that that's not a means of expressing universal truth

It's synonymous with logical empiricism, which is just an attempt to apply scientific rigor to abstract logic, which is fruitless.