-


http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/american/leap/empirici.htm

-

-

Substantial links found at url-address

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/empiricism


-

;Empiricism is a broad tradition in Western philosophy.

saucer wrote : -

The chief influences on the early logical positivists were Ernst Mach and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Mach's influence is most apparent in the logical positivists' persistent concern with metaphysics, the unity of science, and the interpretation of the theoretical terms of science, as well as the doctrines of reductionism and phenomenalism, later abandoned by many positivists.

Wittgenstein's Tractatus was a text of great importance for the positivists. The use of the tools of modern logic for linguistic reform, the conception of philosophy as a "critique of language," and the possibility of drawing a theoretically principled distinction between intelligible and nonsensical discourse were all appealing to the logical positivists. Many positivists adopted a correspondence theory of truth similar to that of the Tractatus, although some, like Otto Neurath, preferred a form of coherentism. Wittgenstein's influence is further evident in certain formulations of the verifiability principle. Compare, for example, Proposition 4.024 of the Tractatus, where Wittgenstein asserts that we understand a proposition when we know what happens if it is true, with Schlick's assertion that "To state the circumstances under which a proposition is true is the same as stating its meaning".[2] The tractarian doctrine that the truths of logic are tautologies was widely held among the logical positivists. Wittgenstein also influenced the logical positivists' interpretation of probability. It should be noted that not all logical positivists' reactions to the Tractatus were positive; according to Neurath, it was full of metaphysics.[3]

Recent developments in logic and the foundations of mathematics, especially Russell and Whitehead's monumental Principia Mathematica, impressed the more mathematically minded logical positivists such as Hans Hahn and Rudolf Carnap. "Language-planning" and syntactical techniques derived from these developments were used to defend logicism in the philosophy of mathematics and various reductionist theses. Russell's theory of types was employed to explosive effect in Carnap's early anti-metaphysical polemics.[4]

Immanuel Kant was something of a punching bag in many of the logical positivists' early debates, but his influence shows through. His doctrine of synthetic a priori truths was the view to overthrow, and his notion of the thing in itself commanded its fair share of attention. More positively, Kantian views about the nature of physical objects pervade the "protocol sentence" debate[5], and the positivists all shared somewhat Kantian views about the relationship between philosophy and science.[6]


Basic tenets
Although the logical positivists held a wide range of beliefs on many matters, they were all interested in science and skeptical of theology and metaphysics. Early on, most logical positivists believed that all knowledge is based on logical inference from simple "protocol sentences" grounded in observable facts. Many logical positivists supported forms of materialism, philosophical naturalism, and empiricism.

Logical positivism is perhaps best known for the verifiability criterion of meaning, which asserts that a statement is meaningful if and only if it is either analytically or empirically verifiable. One intended consequence of the verification criterion is that all non-empirical forms of discourse, including ethics and aesthetics, are not "literally" or "cognitively" meaningful, and thus belong to "metaphysics".

Courtesy WIKI


-  

--Last edited by saucer on 2007-01-23 17:50:24 --

Hi Ferme
 True empirism could only come through total lack of priori. To share or used shared knowledge immediately sullies the thought. You must reject the conclusions utterly and begin the thought process at the base of an idea. Not bound by any conclusions as what the outcome will be when the sequence of logical pathways have been concluded. Then when you share the though , It will be a sequence that no-one else has trodden.
 All problems have dead ends. These are able to be discarded. they don't lead to the answer. The only pathway to persue (and perhaps leave for later proposals is the one that reaches areas we cannot prove or disprove. In this case we seek parallel pathways where several though processes ended in similar behaviour patterns. Allowing them to be true in any and all pathways. Empirism is the meat of new science. The visionaries use it even though they can't conclude the thought, someone in the future may revisit the possibilities of a "crank" and find possibilities often just need newer technologies to prove what someone was able to convince themselves was true using nothing but grey matter.

Cheers
Iseason

I would say you are right! Though where in these "calculations!" DOES 'prediction' lie?

Ferme
  predictions are stepping stones along the way. Since ijn most cases (say , as with Einstien's ) The Predictions are based on current viewpoints as to what is known. General predictions have broader implications and are not bound by exacting measurements.
  Being the first person I know to reject gravity as a pulling force, i must also replace the current view with a prediction as to how it will be found to work. This has rejected all prior learning about how gravity interacts . I have come to that conclusion via parallel pathways in thoughts about the way the world works.
  as each pathway becomes unprovable but still possible , I switch interests to see where i can see the same 'possibilities within a differing system. I must be comfortable that the behaviours are in sinc with prior statements or one is wrong.
 for instance .

  Gravity cannot give a good account of itself between one object and another if the mass on one side of a planet or star must pass through itself in order to 'gravitate ' to a larger object. This would mean that EVERYTHING in the universe would spin according to mass. If that were not true then everything would be elongated.

Cheers
Iseason

Iseason

I suppose one is certain to find a fish at the end of one's rod  if there is bait there! Surely in the same way the universe may be easier to calculate and quantify if:  "flat" or "multi-dimensional" is coefficient, to postulate question ...

ferme  

--Last edited by ferme on 2007-02-11 23:29:41 --

I'm Not out to 'recalculate' the measurements of very skilled scientists. So I never venture anything in conflict with the energy requirements of any system.
 Though in thier theory and mine the direction of a gravity must be equal to the distance. If a flat galaxy 'gravitates towards another. the far side must have a weaker attraction. Further the broad side must gravitate in one direction or another. since this is the most even direction.
 UNLESS gravity must take account of the whole mass. If gravity is an outward bound force which then reverses it's direction to pull , this makes little sense. Why waste energy in grabbing objects?
 in my way the reverse is true. The "attracted " object is seeking conservatism. It knows that this lies in the direction of the greater mass from the waves the mass sends out. This requires no greater "leap of knowledge' than an object holding another.
  The waves from the larger object continue onwards to giv it a picture of the greater universe so IT knows which direction to gravitate.
Cheers
Iseason

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/EMPIRIC.HTM


Ameny Intef IV