I don't think it dominates the thoughts of practicing scientists. Ideal theories produce new predictions which can be checked, though demonstrable consistency with previously made observations obviously serves to support a theory.

What counts as an observation depends on the field of study; historical or anthropological data often require different interpretive techniques than the analysis of quantitative measurements. And some fields, like network analysis in sociology, have quantitative, interpretive/anthropological and historical methodologies which are of simultaneous relevance.

Let's say that positivism is such an old idea that it's not something that scientists get hyped up. They wouldn't form a positivists-circle at your nearby Ivy-League University.

In fact it can be used as a derogatory word: one history professors said about one historian excelling in "creating source-positivist crap". (Source positivism in historiography means that historical truth is and only is in official documents found in archives. It excludes oral history, memoirs or interviews or anything else than documents as viable historical sources.)

It seems to me that there is some continuity in attitude. It's as if there is a type of personality that is anti-metaphysical and anti-religious on a gut level. Then the game becomes justifying the assertion that such talk is meaningless, confused, untrustworthy, decadent, life-hating, etc.

Astonishingly, the SEP doesn't seem to have a dedicated page on logical positivism!

https://plato.stanford.edu/search/search?query=logical+positivism

Nor the IEP.

It's always popular - even in the dreary hallways of sod's nihilism, positivity persists through inclination.

Keep your PMA high. :ok: