Demarcation of science: Logical Positivism

Question 1

What is the definition of Logical positivism?

Answer 1

The definition of logical positivism is: The philosophy of science according to which theoretical concepts are admissible if they are tied to the observable world through operational definition.

Simple terms: It states that science is only that which theories/hypotheses/statements (theoretical concepts) have a connection to the physical (observable) world.

Question 2

When and where/who was Logical positivism thought up?

Answer 2

It was created created in the 1920’s by the Vienna circle.

A group of different scholars, mathematicians, philosophers etc, who needed to discuss when something was indeed true, and what the meaning of truth was.

Question 3

The Vienna Circle in 1920’s decided that truth came from where?

Answer 3

They believed truth primarily came from Empiricism (the senses), so for something to be true or meaningful it must be touchable or able to smell/see it etc.

They reduced the meaning of truth to: All things which can be experienced or measured is true - If this is not possible in principle then it is meaningless/false.

Question 4

When is something meaningful according to a logical positivist?

Answer 4

Statements is meaningful when they at their root have a measurement which is already taken or can be taken in principle.

So if it is something which cannot be measured then it is meaningless e.g a soul is essentially meaningless as you cannot see it, smell it, touch it etc, and it cannot be measured. Talking about a soul would be the same as saying bla. bla. bla as it has no meaning.

(Principle = It can be done if they wanted to do it, but knowing philosophers they don’t like to do stuff but just think of it, so therefore “principle”)

Question 5

Logical positivism believed there was three types of meaningful statements which are these?

Answer 5

1. True by virtue of their form
2. False by virtue of their form
3. Empirical statements

Question 6

What is a “True by virtue of their form” and “False by virtue of their form” statements (Logical Positivism)?

Answer 6

True by virtue of their form: It is raining or it is not raining. (Often an analytic statement or follows rules of math)

False by virtue of their form: It is running AND it is not raining (A contradiction, and does not follow the rules of math)

Question 7

What is an empirical statement (Logical Positivism)?

Answer 7

It is statements which the truth and falsehood lies in the protocol sentence.
Examples of empirical statements: The liquid became transparent at X time.

Question 8

What is a protocol sentence in an empirical statement? (Logical Positivism)

Answer 8

A sentence which have an observation AKA statements which have a measurement in their root, which can be taken in principle.

Question 9

In relation to protocol sentences and empirical statements, we also have something called theoretical statements which is also meaningful. What is a theoretical statement?

Answer 9

This is statements which has non-observation meaning non-O’s. It is statements which we cannot observe or measured by ourself as human, but if it in theory can be tested/measured then it has meaning.

Criteria for a theoretical statement to be meaningful: A T-statement has to be followed by an O-statement. If we cannot deduce O from T, then T is meaningless.

These theoretical statements, was a way to give space to hypotheses and theories. E.g the gravitational theory is a theoretical statement or the stroop test which Automatic processes of the mind conflict with controlled processes of the mind, is a theoretical statement.

Question 10

What is a meaningless statement in logical positivism?

Answer 10

A meaningless statement might include either pseudowords: Teavy, Toovy, principle or a pseudostatement

Question 11

What is a pseudostatement?

Answer 11

A pseudostatement is a sentence with ill-formed syntax with either an unsound syntax (e.g. = Ceasar is and) or a categorical mistake with sound syntax (e.g. = Caesar is a prime number).

Question 12

To minimize or eradicate grammatical and logical syntax errors Carnap had an idea to create what, and how would it work?

Answer 12

He believed a logical language which such mistakes could not be made was they way to go.

This is the solution as he believes metaphysical nonsense creeps in because our language simply admits of the same grammatical form for meaningful and meaningless word sequences.

Question 13

What is metaphysical sentences?

Answer 13

A metaphysical sentence talks about fundamental questions such as existence, reality, causality and the nature of objects. They try to understand the underlying principles and structures of the world.
But given they never talk about something which is tangible and can be empirically verified it is meaningless.

Question 14

What are the implications of logical positivism for psychological theories and statements, and why are these implications challenging to implement in psychology?

Answer 14

For psychology, logical positivism implies that statements and theories should be operationalized (O’s), be universal, and intersubjective. This is challenging because psychology needs a physical language that is universal and translatable into observable, physical terms.

Question 15

How did logical positivists attempt to address the challenge of creating universal and intersubjective psychological statements, and what types of sentences did they develop for this purpose?

Answer 15

To address the challenge, logical positivists created singular and general sentences. Singular sentences describe specific instances, while general sentences either describe qualities (1) or causal laws (2). Examples include:

Singular Psychological Sentence: Mr. A was angry at noon yesterday.

Singular Physical Sentence: Yesterday at noon the temperature of the air in Vienna was 28 degrees Celsius.

General Psychological Sentence (1): An experience of surprise always has such and such structure.

General Physical Sentence (1): Chalk is always white.

General Psychological Sentence (2): When under such and such circumstances, images of such and such occur to a person.

General Physical Sentence (2): When a solid body is heated, it usually expands.

Question 16

Psychology and Cognitive Science became impossible to do through pure logical positivism, then how did it adapt to be possible to do?

Answer 16

Through logical behaviorism it became possible to do these sciences. By observing behavior of a person and their bodily responses which can be empirically verified e.g rise in heart rate or quicker breaths etc.

By doing these, statements then became true and meaningful as they had a measurement or empirical verification in them.

Question 17

As a part of logical positivism, verifications of general sentences filled a lot, how does this relate to Quine-Duhem’s thesis?

Answer 17

According to Duhem’s thesis (Duhem-Quine thesis) then we cannot simply have an observation following a statement/theory. We always test a group rather than a single object, it could very well be that our theory is wrong BUT it could also be that one of the auxiliary assumptions is wrong and is the cause of the failure rather than the theory in itself.

If T&A1, A2, A3 (etc.), then O
Not-O
====
∴ Not T, or not A1, A2 or A3 (etc.)

Question 18

What is the induction problem? (Think “All swans are white”)

Answer 18

The induction problem, here we state that induction uses past events to predict the future. We assume this, however we have no good reason to believe that this is true.
Induction is passing from a singular statement (single ravens) to universal statements (all ravens)
We cannot conclude any truth by universal statements, as we can’t know whether if truth of conclusion doesn’t follow from the truth of premises. “All swans are white.” No matter how many white swans are observed, this statement can never be fully verified because there is always the possibility of encountering a non-white swan in the future.

Question 19

Explain Modus Ponens?

Answer 19

Modus Ponens is a fundamental form of valid argument in classical logic. It is a rule of inference that allows one to derive a conclusion from a conditional statement and its antecedent. The structure of modus ponens can be summarized as follows:

Premise 1 (Conditional Statement): If 𝑃, then 𝑄 (Symbolically: 𝑃→𝑄)
Premise 2 (Antecedent): 𝑃
Conclusion: Therefore, 𝑄

In this structure, if the first premise (the conditional statement) and the second premise (the antecedent) are both true, then the conclusion must also be true. This form of reasoning is widely used in logical proofs and arguments because it preserves the truth from premises to conclusion.

Example:
Premise 1: If it is raining, then the ground is wet. (P→Q)
Premise 2: It is raining. (P)
Conclusion: Therefore, the ground is wet. (Q)

Here, the first premise establishes a conditional relationship between the fact that it is raining and the ground being wet. The second premise confirms that it is indeed raining. Given these premises, the conclusion that the ground is wet logically follows.