= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Matt_Simpson comments on No Logical Positivist I - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (52)
The classic objection to logical positivism is that it is incoherent: If statements which are not testable are meaningless, then the statement "Statements which are not testable are meaningless" is meaningless. For those of you defending logical positivism of any sort, how do you deal with this criticism? Is there even a way to test the central tenet of logical positivism in principle?
I deal solely in testable empirical predictions. My assertion is that a methodology in which one does not consider statements which do not generate testable empirical predictions is more efficient, other things being equal, than one which does, at generating accurate testable empirical predictions. And that's a testable empirical prediction.