I Hope This Helps: Logical Positivism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 янв 2016
- You messed up. You’re in trouble. But don’t worry, logical positivism can help
Subscribe to the Aeon Video newsletter: bit.ly/2MfCgqO
Watch 'I Hope This Helps: Logical Positivism' on Aeon: bit.ly/3p0vSFD
Watch more free videos on Aeon: bit.ly/35DJcpb
Subscribe on RUclips: bit.ly/2EQf1zv
Follow us on Twitter: bit.ly/2SaTMjt
Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/2MgoDrg
Follow us on Instagram: bit.ly/2tDzsNC
We all hate getting yelled at, especially when we mess up. Fortunately, there’s a solution: logical positivism was a philosophical revolution that introduced a new theory of meaning - one that shook philosophy to its core. Strangely enough, it can also give you a convenient way out of a sticky situation.
About I Hope This Helps
A wise man once said: ‘Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.’ Sam Dresser emphatically agrees. In Aeon’s first original web series, he uses arcane philosophical theories to help solve your personal problems. For more advice from Sam, take a look at our originals video channel.
#philosophy #advice #logicalpositivism
The best explanation of logical positivism for non-philosophers ever.
We all can be philosophers!
@@livrepensador, but we can't all be good philosophers
Of what use would an explanation of L.P. have to a non-philosopher?
Obviously
This might just be the epitome of Frat-Party philosophy.
This is so awesome!! You saved me, I'm writing a paper on this now and have no idea, now I do, thank you!!
Ever heard of a concept called BOOKS? I hope this helps.
When asked later in life, in 1978, what the main shortcomings of Logical Positivism were, Ayer (THE FATHER OF LOGICAL POSITIVISM) replied that except for the Emotivism part,
“nearly all of it is false!”
I can't believe I found this series again!
Couldn't have explained it better, thank you!
Beautifully explained the whole thing ...thankyou so much
The shade towards Jim...
You are so good, man!
I love this video. Thank you.
THANKYOUU, IT WELL EXPLAINED. NOW I CAN BRING SOMETHING TO MY PRESENTATION
I love it! The video is so didactic and enjoyable !
Thanks. I greatly enjoyed this.
Yeahhhhh, know who messed up? The guy who did the brick work for the otherwise lovely fireplace in the background. (Face palm)
Really like the style and tone here. That was great!
Thank you for this because I was struggling with my philosophy essay :)
This is great please make more!
This is actually so empowering lol, if you don't let it consume your mind. The truth will set you free ig
This was funny and helpful! Thank you
Actually “Jim owes me a lot of money” isn’t verifiable because you cannot logically deduce an ought from the fact that you gave Jim money. Also, to “owe” isn’t empirical. It’s just a human convention.
Of course "Jim owes me a lot of money” is verifiable: it can be verified by a signed IOU. This evidence used in conjunction with the bank statements is sufficient.
Fabian Tompsett no, because you may not logically deduce an ought from the fact of a piece of paper (or any fact). It’s a non sequitur.
@@J.T.Stillwell3 I'm torn. I was evicted for not paying my mortgage. I said, "you can't derive an ought (to pay) from the is of (my signature on) a document." The police and movers said ok, then you can't decide what we ought to do, and continued to evict me.
Likewise, 10 years later, I was gainfully employed and paying my mortgage just fine. This time I was evicted even though everything was paid in full.
They said, "you can't derive an ought (let you live here) from an is (banking records proving mortgage payments perfectly paid in full).
So I said, "the sky is blue" and they said.
You can't derive the ought (ought to believe the sky is blue) from the is (subjective sensation, perception, conception of blue).
So I said, "I can prove the sky is blue." and they said "you can't derive the ought (to believe the assertion of dipole molecules and Raleigh scattering) to derive the is (specific measurements on the output of spectroscopy instruments identifying the blue wavelength). Round and round we went.
I tried it with chloroplasts fueling photosynthesis but they just wouldn't put my couch down.
@@trombone7 don’t understand what argument you are trying to make here. Nothing you’ve stated refutes my argument.
@@J.T.Stillwell3 It's good you don't understand. One cannot derive "ought" (to understand) from the "is" (existence of my written assertion).
This is some valid stuff bro, appreciate it.
Glad it was helpful!
Great work!
Damn how can one be so handsome! I can listen to him all day
“Like so many aspiring novelists”
>:[ Don’t call me out!
That wasn't really positivism, per se, but a narrow interpretation of verificationism. The analytic-synthetic distinction is also commonly attributed to the positivist movement. I'm also pretty sure that most summaries of verificationism are straw men to varying degrees. They did not actually hold that literally every sentence must be verifiable in order to have meaning, because analytic propositions are an obvious exception to that rule. But at the very least, I'm glad you didn't jump onto the immediate bandwagon of "everything positivists ever said was stupid," because they actually had a very strong influence on our modern philosophy of science.
"Logical positivism, later called logical empiricism, and both of which together are also known as neopositivism, was a movement in Western philosophy whose central thesis was the verification principle (also known as the verifiability criterion of meaning).[1] This theory of knowledge asserted that only statements verifiable through direct observation or logical proof are meaningful in terms of conveying truth value, information or factual content. Starting in the late 1920s, groups of philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians formed the Berlin Circle and the Vienna Circle, which, in these two cities, would propound the ideas of logical positivism."
-Wikipedia
THANK YOU.
Totally helped! I see now why CS Lewis didn’t like them. Thanks!
A small problem for the positivists... the statement "only statements verifiable through direct observation or logical proof are meaningful" is....not verifiable lol It's basically a metaphysical statement.
Very funny and explanatory. Cheers!
I feel like Jim owes him a lot of money in real life
Man, I don't know if you were high when you made this, but you look Polish AF. Well done, brosepholito.
lol, this was great
freaking jim amirite
I don't agree that 'Jim owes me a lot of money' is verifiable. It's normative - it's equivalent to 'Jim should repay the money I gave to him thinking he would repay it'. The statement that 'I transferred Jim X amount of money 4 months ago' is verifiable.
I love this channel
Whew! I've lived to see another day.
Lovely and funny video! Thank u
the piano is overwhelming.
Ha ha ha... I like your attitude. Cheerzz...
Owning money is purely subjective so can never be verified on ethical grounds as well as meta and physically.😁
The principal of empirical verifiable states that there are only two kinds of meaningful propositions: 1) those that are true by definition and 2) those that are empirically verifiable. Since the principle of empirical verifiability itself is neither true by definition nor empirically verifiable, it cannot be meaningful.
It's true by definition. The positivists themselves wrote extensively about it. Please study the issue in detail before pretending to know what you're talking about.
@@AntiCitizenX can you verify that?
@@direwolf699 Of course - read the literature!
But that is true by definition, so what exactly is the issue?
Then the post modernists tossed this out along with reason I guess.
It's time for the open letter.
it helped!
Actually great acting, sir
i just understand the last part of this vids 😂
Here's a nifty idea.... put some money on your credit card! I watched this video and couldn't stop laughing. Excellent.
Interesting logic.
Bro sounds like THOR ODIN SON OF ASGARD
The Vienna Circle saw their philosophy as the philosophy to end all philosophies. Their ideas are clearly necessary in our time. Read RUclips comments or watch OAN.
@@finchbevdale2069 When you've spent up to five minutes reading the work of the Vienna Circle 🔵 your idea of it will matter.
Lol, so did like half the philosophers
Better hope his father doesn't know that logical positivism was refuted long ago.
If a theory is refuted it doesn't make you an idiot, you can still think about it.
Refuted how? Your name suggests that maybe you think someone rode in and proved something about the metaphysical or magical woo woo world? When did someone disprove the idea that you need to use reason and evidence to determine facts and knowledge?
@@madgodloki because positivism is self refuting. It states that non scientific statements have no meaning unless they can be verified by science. That statement in of itself is not scientifically verifiable, therefore, it refutes itself.
@@Convexhull210 I can verify the statement, scientifically. Unless you're trying to say it must be physically empirically proven it definitely can be proven in a verifiable way to be true.
Think of how hypothesis works with gravity for instance, we know it works a certain way each and every time we test it, it is reliable on the results. A person can argue that the theory of gravity is resting on the fact that gravity exists or this or that word games but the fact of the matter is I can predict what will happen when I drop a can of soda, I can even predict what will happen when its opened.
Science being done properly has results, the scientific method we use provides knowable real data.
Meta analysis when its dealing with real phenomena we can test it and that's one thing that's passable. But when you get to religion or super out there meta talk outside the scope of what we actually can test who knows. How could you even know?
@@Convexhull210 so if a statement has no scientific verification or way of verifying it, it's what we call non-falsifiable information.
One caveat to the rule I suppose is personal "meaning" a squiggly line drawn by your child could have meaning to you because you give it that meaning, but that isn't what anyone is talking about when they try to say positivism is wrong.
But the statement, all things that arent verifiable have no meaning is still true as far as I can see it, no real meaning anyways each word is given meaning by the person using or hearing it so god can mean two things to two different people. But word games arent important, if your statement would be "my god jesus the personal savior of all mankind is coming back and hates gays and etc etc." It has no more meaning than someone ranting about Russels teapot floating in space. Or the tooth fairy or santa. All of them have meaning like a story has meaning to the people who hear it but they dont actually mean anything outside of imaginations.
I'm so glad Credit Cards are not a thing in Europe. I would have fell for this immediately
You can!
Isn't assuming that a father will yet at a child a synthetic a priori statement? Also, a money transfer doesn't necessarily mean that there is a debt - without any contract or other evidence the debt only exists in the mind of those who chose to believe in its existence. And The notion that jim is something (insert invective) can be a fact if it were true that he refuses to do something and we have a name for people who do that.
Please stop looking at me.
Very funny!
i still don't understand... logical positivism.... god i wish i was very smart.
Basically, positivism is a theory where it's only true if it can be proved with facts, experiments and/or observations. Take for example when he mentioned the conversation of God, religions don't have facts to prove that God exist, they have faith, a feeling within themselves that He exists. So if a person tries to use Positivism in this argument they would state that God is not real because there is no concrete evidence proving so. Its a very black and white theory.
@@gaby9783 That's not what logical positivism states. Logical positivism claims that all statements can be categorized into only a scientific, mathematical, or nonsensical category. The nonsensical class doesn't mean that a statement is either true or false, but that it is only nonsense. Take the statement "God exists." This statement doesn't fall into either a mathematical or scientific category, at least not without some fudging, so it falls into the nonsensical category, and should be discarded. Don't even bother with it. But what logical positivism doesn't do is claim whether a statement is either true or false, but that it simply does not make sense.
@@pansophia93 Nice explanation.
Tyrannii probably because they weren't drinking booze while teaching class.
You look like Bradley Dack
Sips apple juice
Would “people think Jim is an a**hole” be a meaningful sentence? It’s verifiable by asking people who know Jim.
I think Vienna circle clearly failed in bringing meaning to the world.
kal exam hai meri par aur tu jaaan hai meri thnku😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘
when your average gym bro dude started reading philosophy
You remind me of Seth MacFarlane
More like michael c hall as dexter.
U look like a true darling,,,❤
Very good explanation, but what are we gonna do about this money that Jim owes you?
this is incredible
"booooo" is still meaningful. It means i want you not to do it, which means it has verifiable consequences if you do. "Boo" means, keep doing that and i'll hurt you. Thats very meaningful.
All you know is that Jim owes you $$. You do not know he is a little coward unless he is very short. What is short?
Nonsense. Imperically gained knowledge is optimal, but an insistence upon said uptake of knowledge, while discounting all other forms as meaningless leads to a dead end.
Also, his dad could simply set up a definition and criteria for determining a loser, then he could use data to support his conclusion that his son meets said definition by meeting said criteria.
Also,
🎶🎶🎶👉😐👉🙄👉🤒👉🎶🎶🎶👉💗💗💗👉🙏🙏🙏👉❤️❤️❤️👉🔯🛐🔯👉☯️👉🎶🎶🎶👉💯👉🔥
:D
Almost all grand theories are meaningless...!!!
Hahahaha, thanks to God logical positivists came to be...
What is "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles"
Logical positivists: C'mon Marx, clear the air. Let me understand you
Useless
you could be my "father" if you want...
Wow you are adorable :).
This video makes no sense since the letter itself it answers also makes no sense.
It does. If the father yells at Clementine for being "a bad person" because they weren't responsible then, using the theory of Positivism, the father is incorrect. He cannot prove, with facts, that Clementine is a bad person, there is concrete evidence stating so. The father can think Clementine is bad but that's simply a feeling the father has, therefore, using the Positivist theory, the father is wrong and Clementine can argue back at their father.
DNA test