Scott was right, and I was wrong, about the date of Einstein's Brownian
motion paper (1905). Of course this pushes back the date at which it was
still reasonable to be skeptical of the atomic hypothesis, and so supports
my point, and not Scott's about whether Mach was just a typical scientist
Scott,
We do all sorts of carrying on here, including about philosophy. But I agree
with you and Michael P that it is best done in a civil manner, although as
you see I often fail in that respect.
>
>This is sort of what I was getting at; we are looking at positivism pretty
>much from differe
In a message dated 4/27/01 1:27:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Scott,
>
> You are right to reproach me for my caustic and rude tone, and your
> responded better than I deserved, for which thanks, and I apologize
directly
> to you. We disagree on many things, how
I agree with most of what Justin has to say. Selsam and Martel are
astonishingly ignorant about logical positivism, so much so that I was
always so angry when I read them I couldn't appreciate much of anything
they might have to say even though I am strongly influenced by Marx. However
I will mak
Right, got me there, Ken. --jks
>
>How can you be so sloppy Justin? As you know there are two distinct types
>of
>cognitively meaningful statements according to logical
>positivists/empiricists those you set out here and those which represent
>propositions analytically true or false. Examples o
How can you be so sloppy Justin? As you know there are two distinct types of
cognitively meaningful statements according to logical
positivists/empiricists those you set out here and those which represent
propositions analytically true or false. Examples of the latter would be
anything of the form
Scott,
You are right to reproach me for my caustic and rude tone, and your
responded better than I deserved, for which thanks, and I apologize directly
to you. We disagree on many things, however. I do have tremendous admiration
for the logical positivists. I probably am a lot closer to the po
Sorry about the intemperate tone of the last post. Scott's comments on
positivism, to which I was replying, were very confused, but I was wrong to
have used rude language, and I apologize. I should explain that I was
trained as a philosopher of science by, among others, Carl Hempel, an
origina
In a message dated 4/27/01 8:39:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Beating on "positivism" is beating a dead horse, if logical empiricsim is
> meant--at least in philosophy. However there are serious inaccuracies in
the
> following that I will comment on.
>
Just
Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> Beating on "positivism" is beating a dead horse, if logical empiricsim
> is meant--at least in philosophy.
>
i am not entirely sure you are right, especially since there is no
clean line of separation of philosophy from other fields. the
motivation underlying many o
MAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 8:37 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:10898] Positivism (What is it?)
>
>
> Beating on "positivism" is beating a dead horse, if logical empiricsim is
> meant--at least in philosophy. However there are serious inaccuracies in
the
> follo
Unlike logical positivism, legal positivism is alive and well. The two views
have only very rough structural analogies, LogP is an articulated set of
philosophical doctrines about language and knowledge. LegP is a view about
the nature of law. As fara s I can tell the only point in common his t
Beating on "positivism" is beating a dead horse, if logical empiricsim is
meant--at least in philosophy. However there are serious inaccuracies in the
following that I will comment on.
> >
>
>Most of the folks attempting to answer Carrol's question about postivism
>have
>been referring to A
Michael Savage wrote:
>In my experience positivism means whatever its critics say it means.
I think that's right. So when I criticize "positivism," I make it very
clear what I mean by that term (or use someone else's definition). While I
try to use definitions that fit with the conventionally-u
To add to the comments, there is usually recognized a difference
between the positivism of science and legal positivism. The positivism
of science has been held up as the natural successor to metaphysics,
also known as ontology, just as metaphysics was the natural successor
to religious belief. Th
Carrol,
In my experience positivism means whatever its critics say it means.
I began a PhD looking at 'post-positivism' in International Relations, where critical theorists, constructivists, feminists and post-structuralists have grouped themselves together through a common hostility to pos
In a message dated 4/26/01 8:22:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> avi narayan wrote:
> >
> > Carrol Cox wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Anyone have a better definition of positivism?
> > >
> >
> > http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/logpos.htm
> >
> > is a good start at
Carrol,
Positivism is a big umbrella term, encompassing the views of Comte and Saint
Simon (still a force in Brazil), a comprehensive sort of 19th century
Enlightenment progressivism based on science, British empiricism, Austrian
empiriocriticism, and the logical positivism of the Vienna Circl
ravi narayan wrote:
>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >
> > Anyone have a better definition of positivism?
> >
>
> http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/logpos.htm
>
> is a good start at logical positivism.
Logical positivism I know (or at least knew quite well 50 years ago).
The problem is that "posi
Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> Anyone have a better definition of positivism?
>
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/logpos.htm
is a good start at logical positivism. there is an a.j. ayer book
on the matter, that might be worth looking at. positivism in
science is often held to originate with ernst mach
At 06:04 PM 4/26/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Anyone have a better definition of positivism?
perhaps it's the belief that values and facts can be separated completely
from each other?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Jim Devine wrote:
>
> he argues against positivism (though he never really explains
> what that is)
I've encountered, it seems like, hundreds of attacks on positivism which
also never explained what it was. When I think of positivism I think of
a poster on another list a couple years ago who
22 matches
Mail list logo
