I think it worth noting that Vienna Circle was chased out of Germany by Nazis because they were for the most part Jews and Communists, and at the time Communism was considered to be a Jewish thing. (Marx, Lenin, Trotsky etc)
It is possible to imagine 1+1=2 being simply a hypothesis. If our being is managed so as to see the uniqueness in every thing: then 1+1=2 is simply a hypothesis that can be applied so as to empirically master the universe of unique things; where the cost of this application and mastery is the violation of uniqueness. This something I encountered in supporting "special needs" young people educationally: where some of them had no innate grasp of numerical mathematics; where their mode of being was best understood in terms of the singularity of their being and process (so idiosyncracy in what for them was a priori or first thing), and in terms of the force of their process in being tending to experience things in terms of their uniqueness. The debate about a priori and a experience-based meaning, can be approached in terms of individual psychology. Some individual psychology tends to reflexively presume an a priori ground to personal being; while other individual psychology tends to reflexively presume that all meaning and understanding is experience-based. Such that rather than seeing these views as competing (and about universal reality or truth), we might question respective subscription to these ideas, in terms of what they do by may of mediating respective modes of being for their respective adherents and investors.
The empirical adequacy of a theory is a means to a further end -testing hypotheses and evaluating their degree of approximate truth-, it is not the end in itself (that is in any case, in technology, but: sciences ≠ technologies). Furthermore, it is not the only means of evaluating theories. Indeed, there are conceptual evaluative procedures such as studying the internal or external consistency of an idea, etc.Radical empiricism is far outdated. Holding it is close to pseudo-philosophy and religion.
Godel destroyed consistency with his incompleteness theorem, didn't he? Logic without empirical grounding can NEVER be proofed. Consistency about assumptions can always be assumed: can never be disproved. This is not science. Consistency about empirical things can always be tested. This is science. If consistency were all that was needed for scientific purposes then language would be a science, wouldn't it? Can you test language: what experiments are possible to conduct on language?
Meaning is where the public and the private meet. But is meaning contingent on communication? Is the urge to express one's thought to another necessary, if one can express one's thought to oneself? Why communicate? If one knows something oneself is that knowledge meaningful? Is there a private meaning or is that knowledge something else? Something that only acquires meaning when trying to communicate? If sex is a form of communication, what private knowledge is one trying to convey? Does anyone know the meaning? Can it be expressed linguistically? Or is some meaning beyond linguistic communication? Are there other forms of communication that can convey private knowledge with other forms of meaning besides linguistic meaning?
An example of logical empiricism is 'cars must be always big and consume a large amount of petrol'. This leads to incapability to solve situational engineering problems and is most likely religiously related. Propositions go nowhere.
![[Vowel]물고기는 물에서 살아야 해🐟🤣Fish have to live in the water #funny](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3G9MH063Cx4/mqdefault.jpg)
These are wonderful lectures - no idea why they don't get more views. Particular credit for still writing in chalk on a blackboard!
I think it worth noting that Vienna Circle was chased out of Germany by Nazis because they were for the most part Jews and Communists, and at the time Communism was considered to be a Jewish thing. (Marx, Lenin, Trotsky etc)
You, Sir, have saved my life. I'm studying online. And this has filled so many gaps in my understanding.
What a sweetheart!
Wow! Dr. Daniel was student of Hempel!
Can you turn the subtitle on? Im not that good on english
I am but I need subtitles because I’m autistic and ADHD and can’t process spoken language very well.
Dr Daniel what are the relationships between science and logical empiricism?
Logical Empiricists thinkers make a ground for science.
Moritz Schlick was not Jewish, as far as I know.
nor did Popper attend the "official" meetings, which made him bitter towards the group
He was a socialist and was killed by his fascist inspired student for it.
It is possible to imagine 1+1=2 being simply a hypothesis. If our being is managed so as to see the uniqueness in every thing: then 1+1=2 is simply a hypothesis that can be applied so as to empirically master the universe of unique things; where the cost of this application and mastery is the violation of uniqueness. This something I encountered in supporting "special needs" young people educationally: where some of them had no innate grasp of numerical mathematics; where their mode of being was best understood in terms of the singularity of their being and process (so idiosyncracy in what for them was a priori or first thing), and in terms of the force of their process in being tending to experience things in terms of their uniqueness.
The debate about a priori and a experience-based meaning, can be approached in terms of individual psychology. Some individual psychology tends to reflexively presume an a priori ground to personal being; while other individual psychology tends to reflexively presume that all meaning and understanding is experience-based. Such that rather than seeing these views as competing (and about universal reality or truth), we might question respective subscription to these ideas, in terms of what they do by may of mediating respective modes of being for their respective adherents and investors.
The empirical adequacy of a theory is a means to a further end -testing hypotheses and evaluating their degree of approximate truth-, it is not the end in itself (that is in any case, in technology, but: sciences ≠ technologies). Furthermore, it is not the only means of evaluating theories. Indeed, there are conceptual evaluative procedures such as studying the internal or external consistency of an idea, etc.Radical empiricism is far outdated. Holding it is close to pseudo-philosophy and religion.
Godel destroyed consistency with his incompleteness theorem, didn't he? Logic without empirical grounding can NEVER be proofed. Consistency about assumptions can always be assumed: can never be disproved. This is not science. Consistency about empirical things can always be tested. This is science.
If consistency were all that was needed for scientific purposes then language would be a science, wouldn't it? Can you test language: what experiments are possible to conduct on language?
Meaning is where the public and the private meet. But is meaning contingent on communication? Is the urge to express one's thought to another necessary, if one can express one's thought to oneself? Why communicate?
If one knows something oneself is that knowledge meaningful? Is there a private meaning or is that knowledge something else? Something that only acquires meaning when trying to communicate?
If sex is a form of communication, what private knowledge is one trying to convey? Does anyone know the meaning? Can it be expressed linguistically? Or is some meaning beyond linguistic communication?
Are there other forms of communication that can convey private knowledge with other forms of meaning besides linguistic meaning?
Care to explain why radical empiricism is outdated! Nothing you said contradicts radical empiricism.
@@dharmadefender3932 Exactly. I, too, would like that to be demonstrated.
An example of logical empiricism is 'cars must be always big and consume a large amount of petrol'. This leads to incapability to solve situational engineering problems and is most likely religiously related. Propositions go nowhere.
This is bs there is no lived experience and he has to refer to notes no emotion blah. This person knows he is fulla nothing
Please find someone to listen your lived experience and then you can listen to their story.