One of the LP's weakness was refusing to talk about Metaphysics, which made themselves look embracing intolerance and dogmatism. — Corvus

What made them refuse?

What made them refuse? — Prishon

Metaphysics was dismissed as non-sense, not worthy of serious philosophical debate, because all metaphysical topics are not able to engage in meaningful arguments therefore unable to come to conclusions via detailed analysis of logic or verification.

Metaphysics was dismissed as non-sense — Corvus

Then why is this a topic so "heavily" discussed in philosophy? When does physics stop to make sense and the meta show up? I like your new image, btw!

Then why is this a topic so "heavily" discussed in philosophy? When does physics stop to make sense and the meta show up? — Prishon

Obviously the LPs were wrong in that regard, but it is still a remarkably significant school of philosophy in other respect. Metaphysics will never die.

Metaphysics will never die. — Corvus

:100:

Too anal.

Excuse me?

Logical positivism was too anal-retentive. That's why it faded away. One needs to losen up once in a while.

One needs to losen up once in a while. — Olivier5

Let it all flow!!!

Let it all flow!!! — Prishon

:nerd: :cheer:

Philosophy is all about flow. :-)

If logical positivism implies that one particular hypothesis is correct then it fails because more than one hypothesis may fit observation.

Since we can't zero in on one correct hypothesis, the next best option is to ensure that we're not incorrect (fallibilism).

The basic idea seems to be that since we can never know if we're right, at least make sure we aren't wrong.

Philosophy is all about flow — Olivier5

Philosophy will never be the same again! :grin: :starstruck:

...when you go with the flow. Hasnt the singer stopped voluntary to go with flow?

Prishon Philosophy is all about flow — Olivier5

Especially those headtailslets (or tailheadslets) flowing...

Metaphysics will never die. — Corvus

‘Philosophy buries its undertakers’ ~ Etienne Gilson.

‘Philosophy buries its undertakers’ ~ Etienne Gilson. — Wayfarer

That's deep. :nerd:

Whence logical positivism? 'Verificationism' is not self-consistent enough to verify itself (i.e. "only empirical statements are meaningful" is not an empirical statement and, in its own terms, therefore is not "meaningful" – self-refuting). — 180 Proof

I think it's a definition rather than a claim. Help!

Gilson was a major dude.

Gilson was a major dude. — Wayfarer

Seems had been a prolific writer too. A nobel prize for literature nominee. :up:

Philosophy buries its undertakers’ ~ — Wayfarer

Please... Enlighten me! Im thinking about it but it doesnt click. :smile:

Those that have attempted to bury philosophy (undertakers) by proclaiming it's death or irrelevance (particularly with regard to metaphysics), have been proven wrong (buried) by the fact that philosophy has continued to be practiced.

Those that have attempted to bury philosophy by proclaiming it's death or irrelevance (particularly with regard to metaphysics), have been proven wrong by the fact that philosophy has continued to be practiced. — emancipate

Who then are the undertakers? The ones who shout: "Philosophy is dead!", or philosophers of the non-metaphysical (is physical?) view?

Who then are the undertakers? — Prishon

The LP's of course.

Metaphysics was dismissed as non-sense, not worthy of serious philosophical debate, because all metaphysical topics are not able to engage in meaningful arguments therefore unable to come to conclusions via detailed analysis of logic or verification. — Corvus

Who then are the undertakers — Prishon

Ah! I get it! Philosophy, the very fact that it continues to use meta, buries the LP's. Yes. Its clear now! Thanks! ☺

But cant there be philosophy without metaohysics?

Sure.

‘Philosophy buries its undertakers’ ~ Etienne Gilson.
— Wayfarer

That's deep. :nerd: — Corvus

Yes, that's a keeper.

Either way, definition or claim, it's not an empirical statement.

Either way, definition or claim, it's not an empirical statement. — 180 Proof

Can we formulate an empirical version of logical positivism's thesis statement? If no, why?

Ask @Nagase.