LOGICAL POSITIVISM: THE RECEIVED VIEW IN PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

2013 ◽  
pp. 31-45
Dialogue ◽  
1971 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
William R. Shea

The mainstream of the philosophy of science in the second quarter of this century—the so-called “logical empiricist” or “logical positivist” movement—assumed that theoretical language in science is parasitic upon observation language and can be eliminated from scientific discourse by disinterpretation and formalization, or by explicit definition in or reduction to observational language. But several fashionable views now place the onus on believers in an observation language to show how such a language is meaningful in the absence of a theory.In the present paper, I propose to show why logical positivism failed to do justice to the basic empirical and logical problems of philosophy of science. I also wish to consider why the drastic reaction, typified by Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend, fails t o provide a suitable alternative, and to suggest that the radical approaches of recent writers such as Mary Hesse and Dudley Shapere hold out a genuine promise of dealing effectively with the central tasks that face the philosopher of science today.


Author(s):  
Michael Friedman

Logical positivism (logical empiricism, neo-positivism) originated in Austria and Germany in the 1920s. Inspired by late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century revolutions in logic, mathematics and mathematical physics, it aimed to create a similarly revolutionary scientific philosophy purged of the endless controversies of traditional metaphysics. Its most important representatives were members of the Vienna Circle who gathered around Moritz Schlick at the University of Vienna (including Rudolf Carnap, Herbert Feigl, Kurt Gödel, Hans Hahn, Karl Menger, Otto Neurath and Friedrich Waismann) and those of the Society for Empirical Philosophy who gathered around Hans Reichenbach at the University of Berlin (including Walter Dubislav, Kurt Grelling and Carl Hempel). Although not officially members of either group, the Austrian philosophers Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper were, at least for a time, closely associated with logical positivism. The logical positivist movement reached its apogee in Europe in the years 1928–34, but the rise of National Socialism in 1933 marked the effective end of this phase. Thereafter, however, many of its most important representatives emigrated to the USA. Here logical positivism found a receptive audience among such pragmatically, empirically and logically minded American philosophers as Charles Morris, Ernest Nagel and W.V. Quine. Thus transplanted to the English-speaking world of ‘analytic’ philosophy it exerted a tremendous influence – particularly in philosophy of science and the application of logical and mathematical techniques to philosophical problems more generally. This influence began to wane around 1960, with the rise of a pragmatic form of naturalism due to Quine and a historical-sociological approach to the philosophy of science due mainly to Thomas Kuhn. Both of these later trends, however, developed in explicit reaction to the philosophy of logical positivism and thereby attest to its enduring significance.


2007 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-56
Author(s):  
Svetozar Sindjelic

The aim of this paper is to present and discuss the main points of the philosophy of science of logical positivism, its theoretical framework, as well as its basic philosophical implications. Besides, the author tries to sketch the logical positivists' retreat to a more moderate logical empiricism and, especially, its consequences for their philosophy of science.


1971 ◽  
Vol 21 (82) ◽  
pp. 85
Author(s):  
T. Greenwood ◽  
Peter Achinstein ◽  
Stephen F. Barker

2021 ◽  
pp. 145-160
Author(s):  
Steven L. Goldman

The pursuit of a definitive explanation of how scientists produce knowledge and what kinds of knowledge they produce became more urgent in the early twentieth century as science became increasingly important to society in the form of society-transforming technologies. As the century proceeded, philosophy of science emerged as a subdiscipline within philosophy, coordinate with the elusiveness of the goal of explaining science. By mid-century, philosophers, many trained in the physical sciences, had displaced scientists as the dominant figures in this effort. Henri Poincaré proposed a Mach-like relationalist theory of science, Bertrand Russell defended a logical atomism theory indebted to Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Percy Bridgman defended a theory he called operationalism. Concurrently, William James and John Dewey developed the pragmatism of Charles Sanders Peirce into an action- and belief-based explanation of science. But the dominant philosophy of science from the 1920s through the 1950s was logical positivism/empiricism.


Author(s):  
Alister E. McGrath

Philip Clayton opens his 1989 study of the concept of explanation in physics and theology with an arresting and engaging statement: ‘For believers, religious beliefs help to explain the world and their place within it.’1 For Clayton, this represents both a reliable summary of the consensus of religious believers, and a legitimate option within the changing intellectual landscape of that age. Clayton rightly emphasizes the radical changes in scholarly understanding of rationality which lay behind his book. The school of logical positivism, dominant in the early 1930s and still influential in the 1960s, left no conceptual space for ‘rational’ discussion of beliefs about God, generally taking the view that religious language could not be cognitively meaningful. Yet major transformation in the philosophy of science began to take place during the 1950s, as positivist accounts of reality were gradually displaced by contextualist or coherence-based theories of scientific rationality, opening up new possibilities of dialogue between theology and the philosophy of science....


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document