Is Logical Positivism pozzed?

submitted by Pink from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Pink[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I remember that logical positivism had a logical flaw but it is 10 years ago and I don't remember what it was to be honest.

You're probably thinking of the bad criticism that "the verification principle is not verifiable." The reason this is wrong is that the verification principle is an analytic statement.

We know from maths that not every true statement can be proven true. This is at least one flaw, but I don't think it was the one that made me quit that philosophy back then.

That's Godel's theorem and it doesn't apply to language/the verification principle. For any system of signs there must be a given ground level. There is no way to defer and "prove" 2=2. It simply is. We don't run into a problem like that by simply noting that what you experience is all you have access to, so for synthetic statements to be factually meaningful they need to refer to a set of experience you can imagine.