Some problems with the Verification theory of Logical Positivism:

I’m not one much for labels, but they do serve a purpose, and help in communication.
So I am going to try attach meaning to the label of Logical Positivism. Others know more.

It seems to me be a combination of Rationalism, and Empiricism, which have both fallen out of favor as single tracked and too limiting. Together, some people consider them a knockout, fool proof winner, or at least as good as it’s going to get. After I wrote that I checked Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism), it is seems they agree with me.

Logical Positivism is a theory of philosophy whose primary goal seems to be to determining how to judge if statements are meaningful or not, based on certain criteria. This verification theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verification_theory) is a large part of their belief system.

Some belief systems have a primary pillar of this theory, and for some, the only pillar. It makes them feel secure and give them comfort (editorial).
This theory of philosophy holds that statements about facts ( actual occurrences), must be verified by the system of logical positivism or they are not meaningful.

There are many forms of Logical Positivism, but some elements are common to all forms.
In order for a statement about a fact to be meaningful, it must be verified by empirical and/or, rational means.
Most of us would recognize this as the scientific approach, or the scientific method.

Philosophy tells us that facts are actual occurrences, and may be known, or unknown.

Logical Positivism goes an extra step, and adds the condition that if know, it must be verified by empirical/rational means, or it is not a meaningful statement, that is to say, it is not a true statement about a fact.
No scientifically convincing evidence, and no truthful statement about a fact.

Logical Positivism is ideally suited for the Atheist, so most Atheists are strong Logical Positivists.

I find this theory helpful in the scientific endeavors, but lacking for many aspects of a valid, complete belief system.
Many scientists are Logical Positivists at work, but something else when the work day is done.
Terms like religionist, mystic, spiritualist come to mind.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I see the Logical Positivist as a person inside a building, with many rooms, and no doors or windows to the outside.
Their world is limited to what they can see and study, inside the building.

A Logical Positivist could write a book about the taste of mangos, without ever eating a mango.
They could interview and study others who have eaten mangos, collect the data, make the list, do the charts, and end up with a good verbal and pictorial account of what can be said about the taste of mangos. A great deal of factual information, I am sure.

I’m not saying they might not want to take a bite themselves, but really, that is not necessary for the Logical Positivist.
If I told them I did not need their book, because I had eaten a mango, they might quickly respond by saying, “Prove it!”.

If I gave descriptions that were like the ones in the book, they might accuse me of cheating, and reading the book first. Simply repeating what was in the book is not evidence I had actually eaten one, if anything, it was evidence I had read the book. My statements were not meaningful, because they could not be verified by empirical/rational means.

My statements would be considered false, not factual, I had not eaten mangos, since I did not have the proper evidence or verification
I could bring family members, who say they watched me eat a mango. Useless hearsay to the Logical Positivist.
I show them photos, they want proof I did not photoshop them.
They had no acceptable verification I had eaten a mango, so my statements were the same as false, even if they happened to be true.
My statement would not be meaningful, because I lacked proper empirical, rational evidence.

~ ~

Most people have a little Logical Positivism in their belief system, but also others theories of what it takes for meaning statements of facts, other verification theories.

These pillars will support the belief system when Logical Positivism is weakest, areas that are totally outside the building, outside of empirical or rational explanations.
There is no way for the strong Logical Positivist to investigate any mystical, or supernatural events, as they ae non existent, by the rules of Logical Positivism.

I find experiences to be more factual than some actual statements. The word ‘statement’ is often used for none verbal experiences. (eg:“His absence at the awards ceremony made quite a statement.”)

The strong Logical Positivist relegates accounts of personal experiences as being too subjective, even if millions of people say they experienced such and such, if there is no empirical evidence, no truthful statements about facts.

~ ~ ~

It seem some Atheists believe that religionists should play by the rules of Logical Positivism, accept them, and that require going beyond the basic philosophical meaning of the term ‘fact’, and require their type of verification.
I see no need to deny my own belief system, when I believe theirs is inferior.
I see no need to verify my ‘mystical’ beliefs, to verify my acceptance and experience of intuited knowledge, by their rules.

I do not justify my belief system by their rules, anymore than they justify their belief system by my rules.



There are many classical, common criticisms that I did not mention. Others might.
One common competing theory of philosophy well suited to religionists, is Eschatological Verification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatological_verification).

It seem some Atheists believe that religionists should play by the rules of Logical Positivism, accept them, and that require going beyond the basic philosophical meaning of the term ‘fact’, and require their type of verification.
Correct.
Since that belief system attempts to dictate how we should behave, live, think then why should we subscribe (or even pay attention) to it unless or until it can be shown to have any validity?
The portion in red, by the way, is incorrect.

Correct.
Since that belief system attempts to dictate how we should behave, live, think then why should we subscribe (or even pay attention) to it unless or until it can be shown to have any validity?
The portion in red, by the way, is incorrect.In what way is it incorrect?

You know, we might have to send you to remedial.

It has validity.
Just not in your belief system.
While we are reviewing has has been discussed, your verification theory has no validity in the discussion of religion.

Listen, if some religionists are breakaing into your home, and forcing you to practice their religion, I think you should call the police.

I hear a common complaint of religionists is that Atheists want to control all of the laws of our land, in violation of many of their religious princilpes.

I guess it just depends on what your belief system is.

I see the Logical Positivist as a person inside a building, with many rooms, and no doors or windows to the outside.
Their world is limited to what they can see and study, inside the building.

Right. So rational people who require evidence before they accept fantastic claims don't know how to go outside and enjoy life. Good one.


I see no need to deny my own belief system, when I believe theirs is inferior.
I see no need to verify my ‘mystical’ beliefs, to verify my acceptance and experience of intuited knowledge, by their rules.

I see no need for you to do that either. If it makes you happy, then go with it. But it's you who has chosen to engage in discussion about God on what is primarily a science board. How in the world could you have come to the conclusion that you wouldn't be challenged when making grandiose claims that can't be backed up by evidence?

In what way is it incorrect?
Your claim was that atheists require going beyond the philosophical meaning.
That meaning being:

A "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, that is, the state of affairs[12] reported by a true proposition.[13][14]
Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact) to keep it basic. How do atheists require going beyond asking for it to be shown as a true proposition?


You know, we might have to send you to remedial.
If so I expect to see you there.


It has validity.
Just not in your belief system.
Then you fail to see the point.
Since you admit it has no validity in an atheist's "belief system" why should we accept any of the strictures/ teachings/ rulings of religion? Until we are given good cause to do so (the best, of course, would be to be show that it does have validity) then it's nothing more than a superstition that attempts to place requirements on us.


Listen, if some religionists are breakaing into your home, and forcing you to practice their religion, I think you should call the police.
Fairly amusing. But nothing to do with what I wrote.


I hear a common complaint of religionists is that Atheists want to control all of the laws of our land, in violation of many of their religious princilpes.
And have these complaints been found to have any grounds?

Your claim was that atheists require going beyond the philosophical meaning.
That meaning being:

"A "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, that is, the state of affairs[12] reported by a true proposition" to keep it basic. How do atheists require going beyond asking for it to be shown as a true proposition?I see nothing, repeat, nothing, in your definition to indicate ANY verification process, let alone that of Logical positivism.






Then you fail to see the point.
Since you admit it has no validity in an atheist's "belief system" why should we accept any of the strictures/ teachings/ rulings of religion? Until we are given good cause to do so (the best, of course, would be to be show that it does have validity) then it's nothing more than a superstition that attempts to place requirements on us.And why should any Theist accept any of the strictures/teachings/rulings, of Atheism?
Why should any Theist be expected to validate their belief, by the Atheist rules?






And have these complaints been found to have any grounds?Of course.
Just not according to your belief system.

Right. So rational people who require evidence before they accept fantastic claims don't know how to go outside and enjoy life. Good one.



I see no need for you to do that either. If it makes you happy, then go with it. But it's you who has chosen to engage in discussion about God on what is primarily a science board. How in the world could you have come to the conclusion that you wouldn't be challenged when making grandiose claims that can't be backed up by evidence?"Primarily a science board".
Can you not be objective?
Do you not realize that discussion of religion, would involve the various belief systems of RELIGION.
Must discussion of religion be limited to Atheist belief systems, simply because this is a science board?

I believe there is a fallacy there somewhere.
Surely you are not assuming all scientists are Atheists.
I know you can do better than that.

Discussion of religion that do not include use of their belief systems is, EXTREMELY subjective.

I see nothing, repeat, nothing, in your definition to indicate ANY verification process, let alone that of Logical positivism.
So how does one show that something actually IS the true state of affairs?


And why should any Theist accept any of the strictures/teachings/rulings, of Atheism?
There are none.


Why should any Theist be expected to validate their belief, by the Atheist rules?
It's quite simple: if atheists are expected to conform to a theist society then they require something more than "because I say so".


Of course.
Just not according to your belief system.
:roflmao:

I will be away from the keyboard for most of today.
I am in hopes some of my theist friends can pick up the torch, please do a little reseaarch first.

For most of you, your beliefs are on solid ground.

So how does one show that something actually IS the true state of affairs?


There are none.


It's quite simple: if atheists are expected to conform to a theist society then they require something more than "because I say so".


:roflmao:Have you been checked for myopia?

I hope you are working on showing how the philosophical definition of 'fact', requires verification according to Logical Positivism.

I hope you are working on showing how the philosophical definition of 'fact', requires verification according to Logical Positivism.
How does one know that the true state of affairs IS the true state without verification?
Again.

It's quite simple.

Do you not realize that discussion of religion, would involve the various belief systems of RELIGION.

Sure. But as wordy as this thread of yours is it actually seems to be more about you being upset about the fact that atheists do not take your beliefs in a deity seriously.


Must discussion of religion be limited to Atheist belief systems, simply because this is a science board?

I'm not saying that exactly. But the purpose of the religion forum on this board is to discuss religion within the context of the sciences.


Surely you are not assuming all scientists are Atheists.

I'm not saying that at all.

By the way, I think it's incorrect to assume that most atheists are logical positivists. I would imagine that just as many if not more would identify as scientific realists.

Sure. But as wordy as this thread of yours is it actually seems to be more about you being upset about the fact that atheists do not take your beliefs in a deity seriously.



I'm not saying that exactly. But the purpose of the religion forum on this board is to discuss religion within the context of the sciences.



I'm not saying that at all.

By the way, I think it's incorrect to assume that most atheists are logical positivists. I would imagine that just as many if not more would identify as scientific realists.A discussion of religion within the context of science:
"There is no evidence of god."
Done.

A discussion of religion within the context of science:
"There is no evidence of god."
Done.

I'm not exactly saying that either. Why don't you just have a read of the forum rules?

A discussion of religion within the context of science:
"There is no evidence of god."
Done.Religion is more than just the existence or otherwise of God... especially to those religions that don't believe in God's existence.
Had you suggested this quip with regard a discussion of theism within the context of science, however....

RAV says (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2707569&postcount=4): But it's you who has chosen to engage in discussion about God on what is primarily a science board. How in the world could you have come to the conclusion that you wouldn't be challenged when making grandiose claims that can't be backed up by evidence?
Also: Why don't you just have a read of the forum rules?This thread is not about god, it is about verifications theories, particularly the one used by Atheists.

I am not discussing god, I am discussing the mistaken belief of many Atheists.
I have not made any grandiose claims that cannot be backed up with evidence.

You suggest I look at the rules, so let us have a look at the rules for the ‘Religion” portion of this forum:
The following rules and guidelines for posting in the Religion forum exist to create and maintain a high standard of interesting and informative debate on the topic of Religion where it intersects science with regard to policy, progress and cultural development as well as the examination of Religion from a scientific standpoint as with the fields of sociology, anthropology, psychology and neurology. Such discussion is expected to be done whilst abiding by relevant laws and general standards of civility and common sense. These guidelines are informed by the desire to create an atmosphere of respect for the different opinions of the many posters to this forum.

[“Where it (religion) intersects with science with regard to policy, progress,. . . . . ”]
Tell me, how does the verification theory used by science, and by Atheists intersect with Religion?

When Atheists want to argue with Theists, they want to do it from their verification process, and have no expectation that Theists should be allowed to do it from their verification system.
I do not find that reasonable, I find it lacking in common sense.

Religion does not, is not expected to use the same verification process as science or Atheism. There is no intersection, except to say each has a verification system.
If I am mistaken, and where is the intersection, then they are in agreement. Is that not what intersection means. The two meet each other, no disagreement.
It seems to me if you want to say that on this forum the rules of Science are the only rules allowed, that would be clearly stated.

I expect that in the philosophy section (religion sub-section), the rules of Philosophy would prevail. That is all I am asking.

I expect that the philosophical meaning of ‘fact’ would be agreeable to all.
Instead, you and others seem to feel you have the right to twist, amend, alter, the very meaning of the word, so that it suits the purpose of Atheists.
It is worth noting that not all scientists are Atheists.
This is of course because Science is not Atheistic, It is ambivalent towards religions.

It is worth noting that many scientists, in their personal life, do not use the verification theory established by Logical Positivism, and used my Science, Atheists, and other belief systems. So if many scientists are not Atheists, and, in their persona life, use a verification system dependent on faith, sacred writings, and intuition, how is it not reasonable to think posters to this religion section of the science board would not do the same?

What I see is a bunch of Atheists who are not able to separate Science from their personal beliefs.

They believe Science justifies their insistence that the rules of science supersede the rules of philosophy, in the philosophy section.
Science is not Atheistic.
I see the rules as supporting my position.
In the religion section the rules of Religion should prevale, or at a minimum, the rules of Philosophy.
If you can show that Science is atheistic, according to the rules of this forum, I will consider.


RAV also says (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2707589&postcount=13): Sure. But as wordy as this thread of yours is it actually seems to be more about you being upset about the fact that atheists do not take your beliefs in a deity seriously.It is more about the fact that Science is not Atheistic, and Atheists seem to assume otherwise, by their words.


By the way, I think it's incorrect to assume that most atheists are logical positivists. I would imagine that just as many if not more would identify as scientific realists.Many philosophies depend on the the verification theory, generally attributed to have its start with Logical Positivism.
Any of this theories might be used by Atheists.

How does one know that the true state of affairs IS the true state without verification?
Again.

It's quite simple.Your mental block is becoming tiring.
This is the religion section.
Reeigion does not use the verification theory of Science or Atheism.

Science has no position on Religion, is not Atheistic.
Scicnce cannot use its verification system to validate or invalidate religion.

Atheists can, Science cannot.

Religion is more than just the existence or otherwise of God... especially to those religions that don't believe in God's existence.
Had you suggested this quip with regard a discussion of theism within the context of science, however....I am interested in hearing about this religion that has no god.
I trust it is not football, or some such.

Your mental block is becoming tiring.
And you are still failing to see the question I'm asking...

And you are still failing to see the question I'm asking...If I understand your question, the answer seems so obvious. . . . . but of course it isn't. My mistake.

Faith, Sacred Writings, and Intuition, are ways to verify that your verification theory does not accept.

Some problems as mentioned by wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_Positivism):

A response to the second criticism was provided by A. J. Ayer in Language, Truth and Logic, in which he sets out the distinction between "strong" and "weak" verification. "A proposition is said to be verifiable, in the strong sense of the term, if, and only if, its truth could be conclusively established by experience." (Ayer 1946:50) It is this sense of verifiable that causes the problem of verification with negative existential claims and positive universal claims. However, the weak sense of verification states that a proposition is "verifiable... if it is possible for experience to render it probable".

[Ed: The experience religionists have experienced, render that god is possible, and therefore has been 'verified', by certain philosophical standards.]
~ ~ ~


Early critics of logical positivism said that its fundamental tenets could not themselves be formulated in a way that was clearly consistent. The verifiability criterion of meaning did not seem verifiable; but neither was it simply a logical tautology, since it had implications for the practice of science and the empirical truth of other statements.

~ ~ ~

Karl Popper was a well-known critic of logical positivism, who published the book Logik der Forschung in 1934In it he argued that the positivists' criterion of verifiability was too strong a criterion for science, and should be replaced by a criterion of falsifiability. Popper thought that falsifiability was a better criterion because it did not invite the philosophical problems inherent in verifying an inductive inference, and it allowed statements from the physical sciences which seemed scientific but which did not meet the verification criterion.
~ ~ ~

Here is a criticism, not of the verification theory itself, but of Logical Positivism in general:

Most philosophers consider logical positivism to be, as John Passmore expressed it, "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes." By the late 1970s, its ideas were so generally recognized to be seriously defective that one of its own chief proponents, A. J. Ayer, could say in a interview: "I suppose the most important [defect]...was that nearly all of it was false." It retains an important place in the history of Analytic philosophy as the antecedent of movements which continue today, such as Constructive empiricism, Positivism and Postpositivism.

~ ~ ~ ~
Comments on the verification theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verification_theory):

The theory has radical consequences for traditional philosophy as it, if correct, would render much of past philosophical work meaningless, for example metaphysics and ethics. It is important to note that the theory is meant to be applied only to synthetic claims (i.e. claims about the world), rather than analytical ones.

Faith, Sacred Writings, and Intuition, are ways to verify that your verification theory does not accept.
Correct. In as much as they are claimed to provide such verifiable evidence.
Which brings us back to my original question: Since that belief system attempts to dictate how we should behave, live, think then why should we subscribe (or even pay attention) to it unless or until it can be shown to have any validity?

We are supposed to subscribe to this belief (or at least accept its tenets and restrictions) yet it cannot be shown that it's worth subscribing to until one accepts "verification" that is only available once it has already been subscribed to.
You see the problem?

Correct. In as much as they are claimed to provide such verifiable evidence.
Which brings us back to my original question: Since that belief system attempts to dictate how we should behave, live, think then why should we subscribe (or even pay attention) to it unless or until it can be shown to have any validity?

We are supposed to subscribe to this belief (or at least accept its tenets and restrictions) yet it cannot be shown that it's worth subscribing to until one accepts "verification" that is only available once it has already been subscribed to.
You see the problem?Your belief system does the same thing.
You want others to live, not by their belief system, but by yours.

You do not show that your belief system is worth subscribing to, until or unless we subscribe to your belief system.
That is the problem I see.

You think your belief system is special.
It is not.

You think Science supports your belief system, it does not.
Science is ambivilent towards religion.
That is a fact.

Scientists who are religionists, see no conflict, because they have a factual view of Science.
You see a conflict, because you do not have a factual view of Science.

We will agree that religionists, and scienctists create conflicts.
People to people, yes, conflicts.

Science to Religion, no conflict.

Your belief system does the same thing.
You want others to live, not by their belief system, but by yours.
Incorrect.


You do not show that your belief system is worth subscribing to, until or unless we subscribe to your belief system.
I see. So theists ignore everything science shows us?


You think your belief system is special.
Special? In that it actually works? Yep.


You think Science supports your belief system, it does not.
Science is ambivilent towards religion.
That is a fact.
So what "belief system" do you think I'm operating under?


Scientists who are religionists, see no conflict, because they have a factual view of Science.
You see a conflict, because you do not have a factual view of Science.
You're assuming something here, I'm not quite sure what.


Science to Religion, no conflict.
Except that science has shown religion to be incorrect time and time again.

Incorrect.Oh, in your belief system, no explaination is needed.
I see that Atheists want religions to stop 'preaching'.
I see that no religionist, not even the Seven Day Adventists, has come to my door and said 'convert or be punished'.
There are extremists, of every color, Atheist included, that are life threatening, not a uniquness of religions.



I see. So theists ignore everything science shows us?What?
Theists sometimes accept what science has shown us, sometime not.
Atheists sometimes accept, sometimes not.
Scientists sometimes accept, sometimes not, what other scientists claim.
Some of the greatest discoveries of science came from objectors to the status quo.




Special? In that it actually works? Yep.It only works, because you say it works.
No verification outside your own system.
That's the way it works.
All belief systems work, to those on the inside.
Of course your works for you.
Mine works for me.
Yours does not work for me, mine does not work for you.




So what "belief system" do you think I'm operating under?One that requires the veirifcation theory of Logical Positivism be applied to determine if statements are meaningful.
Am I incorrect?


You're assuming something here, I'm not quite sure what.I'm assuming you think the rules of Science, must apply to other disciplines.
I'm assuming you think that since the rules of science work for science, they MUST work for religion as well.
They MUST work for how people live their daily life.



Except that science has shown religion to be incorrect time and time again.Science has shows science to be incorrect time and time again.
I assume you do not disagree.

Are we then to throw out Science?

When Science has shown Religion to be incorrect, Religion has changed its views. There are exceptions of course. These are not so much 'Religion', as Religionists.
Many sects of the major religions have no objections to the Scientifically factual nature of evolution.
Science tells how, Religion tells why, that is how they view things.

Some people claim Science has shown things, when it has not.
Science has never shown there is no god.
Science has never shown there are supernatural occurances.
A lack of evidence is not evidence.

The business of Science is the natural world.
Science makes no comments on morals, ethics, what we can call value judgements.
It makes no comments about any god, except to say it can make no comment.
Is Islam more correct than Christianity?
Science makes no comment.
Are Islam and Christianity both incorrect?
Science makes no comment.

Oh, in your belief system, no explaination is needed.
You misread: I simply meant that I don't want others to live by my belief system. Which was your claim.


I see that no religionist, not even the Seven Day Adventists, has come to my door and said 'convert or be punished'.
Luck you.


What?
Theists sometimes accept what science has shown us, sometime not.
So theists are ambivalent? Undecided? Can't make their minds up?


It only works, because you say it works.
No verification outside your own system.
Right. And all the technology in the world is an illusion.


Yours does not work for me, mine does not work for you.
Evidently wrong, since you're using a computer to argue with me. Wait! maybe you're just sending your messages through "god" and I'm simply reading them on my PC.


One that requires the veirifcation theory of Logical Positivism be applied to determine if statements are meaningful.
Am I incorrect?
So why the comment "science is ambivalent"?


I'm assuming you think the rules of Science, must apply to other disciplines.
I'm assuming you think that since the rules of science work for science, they MUST work for religion as well.
They MUST work for how people live their daily life.
You're also (apparently) assuming I don't have a "factual view of science".
One more time: YOUR system can only be shown to be "true" IF and ONLY IF one subscribes to it. This is not true of science.


Science has shows science to be incorrect time and time again.
I assume you do not disagree.
Science is regarded as a self-correcting system.


When Science has shown Religion to be incorrect, Religion has changed its views.
After some extremely long periods of time.


Many sects of the major religions have no objections to the Scientifically factual nature of evolution.
And some do. Vehement objections.


Science tells how, Religion tells why, that is how they view things.
Correction: religion claims to tell "why".


Some people claim Science has shown things, when it has not.
Science has never shown there is no god.
Science has never shown there are supernatural occurances.
A lack of evidence is not evidence.
If science could show there are "supernatural occurrences then they wouldn't be supernatural. :rolleyes:
Agreed, lack of evidence is not evidence. But lack of evidence after so long and so many claims, reduces the chance of there being anything worth investigating. It eventually comes down to weight of probability.

One more time: YOUR system can only be shown to be "true" IF and ONLY IF one subscribes to it. This is not true of science.I can certainly reasonably assume that your belief system includes Atheism.
That is not a part of Science, so your belief system goes beyond Science.
Atheism can only be shown to be true, if, and only if, one subscribes to it.
The verification theory that is the basis for most Athiests, same.

~ ~ ~
It seems ironic that the common argument against Evolution, is the low probablity.
And here you are, making that same agrument against religion.
~ ~ ~

You can have the last word.

I can certainly reasonably assume that your belief system includes Atheism.
That is not a part of Science, so your belief system goes beyond Science.
This would be false.
Since science provides no evidence for god how does my lack of belief in god go beyond science?
I see no reason to subscribe to something for which there is no evidence.


It seems ironic that the common argument against Evolution, is the low probablity.
:eek: Really?