Talk:Positivism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Positivism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Much Better (as of March 12, 2007)
The new introductory paragraph is much better than anything previous, good work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.171.21.151 (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Antiscience?
Though not an expert in this field, I take issue with declaring the stance of others, philosophers, ecofeminists, ect. who do not adopt such a position as being "antiscience" at the end of the entry. They may be antipositivist, but I know of many scientists who are fully aware of scentific limitations, but would never call their beliefs in such areas as being antiscience. They simply believe that science does not apply. I think it gives the wrong impression, and perhaps supports positivist thinking be declaring others who disagree with its extremes as taking antiscience positions. -- Corey Wade August 16,2006
[edit] Is this really good enough?
This article doesnt explain positivism very well, its got a point of view, and doesn't have any sources. Can we get someone who is an expert to organize this in a better way? I'd do it myself, but I don't know what to write... Mabey someone could at least put one of those warning banners across the page that say " Article Needs Work" or something... -- June 26th 2005 Anonymous User
[edit] It isn't good enough
I agree.
My life's work has centered on critically understanding positivism--meaning not Comte, specifically, but rather, the more inclusive and important sense of the term "positivism" which is synonomous with "scientism" (and which is invoked by e.g. Stephen Hawking when he writes, "I am a positivist").
Noting that the article as it stood was not only biased but seemed to actually mimic the rhetoric of Carnap (arguably the sharpest positivist thinker ever), I simply added a few quick questions I would ask a positivist (mostly of an epistemological nature) (others later dignified the questions with a sub-title and then numerals).
An unbiased account is called for, one which explains both senses of the term. (As to the not uncommon suggestion that the larger sense of the term can be handled by the term "scientism" exclusively, , the two main problems with this are that the term "scientism" is traditionally pejorative, and that in that instance one who subscribes to the philosophical view in question would be known as a "scientist" [!].) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rflacco (talk • contribs) 02:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Positivism in the philosophy of science
I had been under the impression that positivism was, in the philosophy of science, the belief that entities that are not directly observable (such as electrons) are metaphysical and should be treated only as mathematical postulates. Perhaps I am wrong on this point? --Adam Lewis 05:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
You may be refering to logical positivism. -- TB
[edit] Request for citation of sources
I'm sorry. I'm a nascent student of philosophy but the Positivism (philosophy) page as far as I understand it is very off. It seems to confuse it with some other things or just misstate them. This is not my area of focus within philosophy but I still believe that I am correct. If am mistaken can someone point me to a source valdating it to allay my fears?
[edit] Review
The questions posed at the end of this article seem to be pure rhetoric, with no backing whatsoever to justify the assumptions made within. 'Ideology is unscientific?' To whoever wrote these questions: I recommend a lesson from your own book, pal; assumptions in proofs disqualify any 'proof' to be a proof at all.
[edit] Reply To "Review"
1. This is philosophy, not rhetoric. 2. I'm amazed that anyone would question the distinction between ideology, i.e. unproven systems of belief, and science. (Speechless also.) 3. "Pal"? (This sort of talk is inappropriate--someone please edit us here, thanks!--and it evidences extreme bias.)
[edit] Review
This page needs more rigorous work in light of above observations. The page needs chapter and verse citations to reputuable sources. Sholto Maud 23:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Also if "Positivism is a philosophy developed by Auguste Comte in the beginning of the 19th century, which stated that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge" then shouldn't this article be classified as "Positivism (philosophy/science)" ? Sholto Maud 05:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Positivism is much older than is claimed here, though it may not have always gone under this name. Though he didn't use the actual word, Kant attacked it in in 1780s in Critique of Pure Reason. Euchrid 07:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sentence removed for further consideration by the editors
I have removed this sentence, on the basis of its being conclusory without explanation, unsourced, and partly POV...Kenosis 18:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC) .... Was this intended to refer to the problem of induction? ....Kenosis 18:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- "Paradoxically, some forms of positivism cannot be used to validate themselves--most famously, logical positivism is considered self-defeating. " ... 18:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- It seems that that statement was referring to the self-negation of the verification principle of meaning. That principles states that propositions are meaningful as a function of their method of verification. However, this principle itself had no way of being verified, and thus was, by its own standards, meaningless. This famous principle of logical positivism, and the Vienna Circle, deafeated itself. Drifter 16:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "This is precisely where many..."
Doesn't anybody else find the combination "...historians, philosophers and ecofeminists" laughable? That sentence is also written in a highly POV way ("roundly condemn", "simplistic approach", "inappropriately applied"...). I could try to fix it, but what it really needs is not only reformulation but also sourcing. Mglg 00:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed! What is of a bigger concern is that the author makes the bold leap of equating the reductionist aspect of positivism with science itself (this precisely where many [thinkers] part company with 'SCIENCE'). While the scientific method is central to science, the concept of reductionism is not, hence you can not claim that thinkers are 'antiscientific' if they reject the idea of biological processes being ultimately reducible to the laws of physics . This assertion is only a matter of opinion representative of the contemporary reductionist agenda. Tuk 04:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Combining articles
Positivism is the primary article, sociological positivism is a branch of that philosophy. A sociologist did create this perspective within philosophy, however it is applied in a variety of different fields, such as geography; therefore, I feel that we should merge sociological positivism into this article, not the other way around. Should geographical positivism become a branch of sociological positivism in wikipedia? SCmurky 23:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] merge
there has been no justification or discussion of the merge. the merge has been removed.--Buridan 02:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Measurableness?
- Positivism is also depicted as "the view that all true knowledge is scientific," [Bullock & Trombley] and that all things are ultimately measurable.
Even science doesn't believe that (think quantum physics), so is this a case where positivism has diverged from science or simply a misstatement? Polymath69 08:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Indeed it does appear so, or rather that the results of scientific method don't verify the theory of positivism. How ironic, perhaps there's something wrong with scientific method. Supposed 07:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I may be entirely wrong, and if I am, please be kind--but at the top of the article, it says that "...such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method." I was under the impression (through some work in biology) that the scientific method never affirms anything, but can only disprove a hypothesis. Hence the use the of the world "theory" to describe things that we consider solid facts (gravity, evolution, etc). I believed that a hypothesis was slowly elevated to a theory after many, many tests failed to disprove it. Thus, the hypothesis/theory is not proven correct, but has so far not been proven incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrpendent (talk • contribs) 15:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
- Indeed it does appear so, or rather that the results of scientific method don't verify the theory of positivism. How ironic, perhaps there's something wrong with scientific method. Supposed 07:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] IBID
what is all this [ibid] business about? Cheers Supposed 07:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- "ibid", short for ibidem, means "the same reference as the previous one I cited" – in this case [Bullock & Trombley]. The notation is sometimes used in scholarly books and articles, particularly older ones, but it is now generally discouraged. I don't personally think it should be used in Wikipedia. mglg(talk) 01:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mach
Ernst Mach's phenomenology is sometimes referred to as positivism as well (and is the closest connection to the "positivism" aspect of logical positivism), though it is clearly different from Comtean positivism. Maybe we should put a note in here in case people come here wanting to learn about Mach and get confused? It also might be noting somewhere that a lot of philosophies have been known as "positivism" over time and that it is sometimes used as a very catch-all and inspecific term. --24.147.86.187 13:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
