Logical Positivism

[Mark, The Failed Philosopher]

For some reason I can't post this one without writing this here.

[[deleted user]]

Culture is dead. Long live science.

[John]

Culture is like the air we breathe, not noticed but always there limiting our choices!

[Mark, The Failed Philosopher]

Anybody wanna say something relevant? lol

[John]

The criteria of verification fails the test of self reference

[Mark, The Failed Philosopher]

That is a very well known problem. I was wondering why it was not given yet.

[Mark, The Failed Philosopher]

I feel like giving some odder questions here.

Did they change anything at all by making the limit on our knowledge of the world and 'things', (in the broadest sense), as found in Kant, a limit on language instead? (Wittgenstein almost quotes it)

Does Popper's falsification solve the problems with the verificationist position by removing the possibility for a self-defeating loop? or, (this kinda answers it), do we have to ask if falsifying falsification is even at all possible because doing it would restart the same loop again.

[John]

I believe Carnap's attempt at devising a syntactical Lang appropriate to Science failed! However there is his notion of Kn frameworks that I find relevant-an inventory of kinds of things that constitute the W is while interesting doesn't address their relevance outside the logical/ math. Framework of Sc. Phil. might if it would move beyond its intimidation by scientists who themselves must face certain existential Q's just like the rest of us! While clarity of Thought is Nec. as far as poss., relevance is more imp!