Logical Empiricism and Its Critique

LIU Jia & ZHOU BoThe Institute of Education and Social Studies

?

Logical Empiricism and Its Critique

LIU Jia & ZHOU Bo
The Institute of Education and Social Studies

Palacky University， Czech Republic

Logical empiricism（refer as LE） is a philosophic movement，fi rstly launched by the scholar in Vienna ， and it blossomed in the 1920s to 30s in big city of Europe and in the 40s to 50s of United States. And its name logical empiricism cannot distinguish from logical empiricism. Although these scholars’ point of view is different from each another. Because logical empiricism is here considered as a philosophic movement rather than as some doctrines， there is probably no precisely conception that all logical empiricism scholar shared. A general concerning for scientifi c methodology gather the group together and they all agree with the important role of science， which could play in reshaping society. Holding that scientific methodology， the logical empiricists want to confirm a natural and important role for logic and mathematics and find an understanding of philosophy depending on which it was part of the scientifi c enterprise. So logical empiricism is the most prevalent the philosophy of science in the English speaking world， often more implicitly than explicitly

Although there were disagreements of different scholars from the beginning in the field of logical empiricism， and their thought multiplied as the philosophic movement progressed， which could be mainly described by thought that only scientifi c knowledge is the truth，and is factual and all other metaphysical discourse are meaningless，which cannot be testified. However， this is completely different from the traditional empiricism and positivism in ways that refer to personal experience. It is meant to be the scientifi c experimental verifi cation that holds fi nal justifi cation of knowledge. There are several tenet of LE that could be generalized. First， it is empirical in its requirement that all knowledge （except for the protocol sentence， analytical expression） be testify from scientifi c experience. It is naturedly to reject the metaphysic，which cannot be verified by reference to mathematic calculation and empirical proved. Second， it’s scientific in nature of LM that the methods of the sciences — especially physics — are the only way for human being to get true knowledge （sometimes called as Physicalism），as Carnap said“science wants to speak about what is objective， and whatever does not belong to the structure but to the material … is， in the fi nal analysis， subjective” （Carnap， 1968， p.16）. Finally， logical constructions play the key part of the relationship between the basic data and the higher regulation of scientifi c theory. We’ve seen that Russell and Wittgenstein supported a similar perspective， so it’s not surprising that the Tractatus from Wittgenstein was treated almost as sacred bible，and was practical applied in the domain of LE.

One of the core tenets of LE was the verifi ability principle， that is be says meaning of a discourse is depending on verifying of empiricism. That is to say， the meaning of the discourse of and measurements for testifying the meaning， that we would have to certify whether both of them are true or false. For example， considering a discourse expressed like"it is at 13:50' o chock ". what does that mean. The logical empiricist would answer once you look at your clock on the wall， then it is show 13:50' o chock. Nevertheless， “l(fā)ook at your clock" is still a much argued issue we may discuss it later. so the logical empiricist would use more precisely expression to say that by justifi ed my clock to the Greenwich mean time， we can read the hour hand marked 13， and minute hand pointed to the number 50， so we can conclude the time is at 13:50 o clock. This is still typical explanation for what the verifiability is and how to do the verifi cation. That is to show we use a correct equipment （clock has been justifi ed to the Greenwich mean time） to verify the truth of time， then we can conclude a truth by our observation. In general，the key is that all meaningful factual expression can be transformed to practical observed experiment or measurement， experiment or measurement is a method for us to obtain the discourse and the results of the experiment or measurement would verifi ed our discourse.

Inevitably， the nature of verification of discourse would conduct the rejection of the proposition of metaphysics， which be verified by reference to data is literally meaningless. as we know， traditionally metaphysics （continental philosophy） is the study of the basic relationship of existence and consciousness， this kind of discussion such as idealism or materialism， is prior beyond empirical verification， it cannot be tested as a experiment， this sort of transcendental discourse is out of the "demarcation" of science said by Karl popper， who although is not typical logical empiricism. So among the logical empiricist，“metaphysics” became a term of meaninglessness， and the approach of speculative thought is daydream in their words. The feature of metaphysics is ambiguity， diversity， absurdity and implicitly， where the defi nition is vexed philosophers for centuries. The argument between the idealism and materialism is endless by the useless approach of speculation， which could not solve the question but instead raise more problems. In this way， getting ride of the metaphysics， verifiability principle is a strong weapon that could solve all the myth， which could be testify in LEsit eyes.

The issue of ethic and aesthetic has almost the same problem as metaphysics， most of the earlier logical positivists hold the opinion that ethical and aesthetic discourse did not have any meaning than emotional expression. Thus an aesthetic discourse such as “That beautiful fl ower is burning” has the same function as “good” or “great!” An ethical justifi cation， such as “this is totally not right” is really just a dialogue of private sensation， as same as an agony， or a cheerful happiness， or a loneliness. "For we have seen that， as ethical judgements are mere expressions of feeling， there can be no way of determining the validity of any ethical system， and， indeed， no sense in asking whether any such system is true."（Ayer， LTL， p. 112）.If these statements is meaningful at all， it only reflected the someone’s emotional state， which is to cannot be verifi ed and testifi ed by mathematics or physics.

Another manifest feature of LM was the unify science movement into the development of philosophy. Reductionism is totally principle， all the subject can be reduce into the language of physics as the s ense-datum language. C arnap gave a fully explanation of how the discourse expressed as the scientifi c language. However， the basic sentence of physics can be reducible to the chemistry if the circumstance need it， but in general，physics could be the universal language as science :

The thesis of physicalism maintains that the physical language is auniversal language of science — that is to say， that every language of any sub-domain of science can be equipollent translated into the physical language. From this it follows that science is unitary system within which there are no fundamentally diverse object-domains， and consequently no gulf， for example， between natural and psychological sciences. This is the thesis of the unity of science. （Carnap， LSL， p. 320）

However the logical positivists cannot be able to work out this theory， but the thought infl uence the scientist， who desire to interpret the phenomena into the language of physic. And the methodology of physics and mathematics is a the only the way to the real science regarded by the sociology.

But Logical empiricism has its internal discussion about the status of the verifiability principle. The most popular one is held by the Karl Popper. He argues that theories， in order to be classified as scientifi c， "must be capable of confl icting with possible， or conceivable，observations" （Popper， 2002，p.51）. In the book of Logic Scientifi c Discovery， Popper insisted that science should adopt a methodology based on the principle of falsifi ability rather than verifi ability， because of the problem of induction; you cannot say this theory is verifi ed because I have done the same experiment several times. By the supporting of logic， sometimes single observation can be inducted as a theory， but in Popper' eye， this "theory" only can express as hypothesis. Theory of science or the hypothesis could only be falsifi ed by the experiment. No number of experiments can ever prove a theory， but a single experiment can contradict one. Popper held that empirical theories are characterized by falsifi cation.

Falsifi cation refer to the inherent ability to prove that a statement，hypothesis or theory is false. This principle point out some of the theory cannot goes wrong. if you adopt this theory， you c an explain all the phenomenon by this theory， such a psycho analysis or historical materialism. Falsification principle is a demarcation of science and pseudo- science. if one theory submitted to vigorous testing， those that stand up to the testing are strongest theory as science.

Po per's idea is to revise the LM， but the article Two Dogmas of Empiricism written by W.V. Quine， which almost overthrow the school thought of LE. In this most important easy， he attack on two core foundation of LM， one is the distinction of analytic statement and synthetic statement. By his point of view， if we need to understand the analytic statement， we must need to use the synonymy to translate the word into another statement in the same language， but there is a premise，that we should understand these synonymies in this language system. That is to say to express a analytic statement we need to understand the whole language system unless the analytic statement is not interchangeable. So it is easy to see an explanation circle to distinguish the analytic and synthetic statement. without the distinction of the analytic and synthetic statement， the verifi cation lost its foundation. The second attack hosted by W.V. Quine point to the reducationsim or the principle of physicalism. Quine assumes Carnap is a radical reductionist: “Radical reductionism … set itself the task of specifying a sense-datum language and showing how to translate the rest of signifi cant discourse， statement by statement into it” （Quine， 1980）.Quine object the idea of Carnap who insist that translation of statements into X;Y;Z;T as his sense-datum language. Quine use the verification approach of LE to reject this view， this reducible procedure and the fi nale data is very hard to prove or verifi ed. Quine said that reductionism is another “metaphysical article of faith”.

By rejection of the LE， Quine pose that whole domain of science need to be verifi ed， not a single statements， because all the discourse is inter-relationship， interacted. This refers to his holism， so that is to say every single empirical observation or a single statement is misleading. The premise of holism is meant to say all kinds of the discourse is waiting for the empirical data， but some of them is not justifiable because of the historical development， but we still keep its justifi able alternatives，unless all of our discourse is meaningless or useless.

So logical empiricism was inspired by Russell and Wittgenstei n， but collapsed by its internal discussion and the attack of Quine. This kind of "Paradigm” （the key concept of Thomas kuhn） give a certain to way to see the world!

Reference:

［1］Ayer， A. J. （2012）. Language， truth and logic. Courier Corporation.

［2］Carnap， R. （1937）. Logical syntax of language （Vol. 4）. Psychology Press.

［3］Carnap， R. （1968）. The logical structure of the world. Univ of California Press.

［4］Popper K （2002） . Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge

［5］Quine， W. V. O. （1980）. From a logical point of view: 9 logico-philosophical essays （Vol. 9）. Harvard University Press.