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
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
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
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
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
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
