DOCSLIB.ORG

“Logical Positivism”— “Logical Empiricism”: What’S in a Name?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Logical Positivism”— “Logical Empiricism”: What’S in a Name? “Logical Positivism”— “Logical Empiricism”: What’s in a Name? Thomas Uebel University of Manchester Do the terms “logical positivism” and “logical empiricism” mark a philo- sophically real and signiªcant distinction? There is, of course, no doubt that the ªrst term designates the group of philosophers known as the Vi- enna Circle, headed by Moritz Schlick and including Rudolf Carnap, Her- bert Feigl, Philipp Frank, Hans Hahn, Otto Neurath, Friedrich Wais- mann and others. What is debatable, however, is whether the name “logical positivism” correctly distinguishes their doctrines from related ones called “logical empiricism” that emerged from the Berlin Society for Scientiªc Philosophy around Hans Reichenbach which included Walter Dubislav, Kurt Grelling, Kurt Lewin and a young Carl Gustav Hempel.1 The person who called the co-referentiality of the two terms into ques- tion was Reichenbach himself. He did so in two publications of the second half of the 1930s—in an article in Journal of Philosophy (1936) and in his Experience and Prediction (1938)—in order to alert readers to important dif- ferences between his own philosophy and that of the Vienna Circle.2 Reichenbach’s distinction was taken up by his former student Wesley Salmon.3 Not only did Salmon restate it, but he also asserted, categorically and very much in Reichenbach’s spirit, that “our chief inheritance from logical positivism” is “logical empiricism” ([1985] 2005, p. 7). The story of this inheritance is the story of “twentieth-century scientiªc philoso- phy”: 1. In their “Introduction” to the Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism Richardson and Uebel solve the matter by decree, declaring both terms to be “synonymous” (2007, p. 1 fn.). 2. Reichenbach’s way of drawing the distinction and its context will be discussed in de- tail in sect. 6 below. 3. This distinction also appears to be basic to Nicolas Rescher’s account of the “Berlin School of Logical Empiricism” (2006). Perspectives on Science 2013, vol. 21, no. 1 ©2013 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology 58 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00086 by guest on 23 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 59 This movement grew chieºy out of the logical positivism of the Vi- enna Circle (with which Carnap was mainly associated) and the log- ical empiricism of the Berlin Group (with which Hans Reichenbach was connected). By midcentury virtually every important ªgure in the movement had relinquished some of the more extreme views of early logical positivism, abandoned the designation of ‘logical posi- tivist’, and adopted ‘logical empiricism’ as the name of their move- ment. After that, logical positivism no longer existed. ([1994] 2005, p. 19) Who then “killed” logical positivism—on this story?4 In print Salmon him- self went no further than to state that Reichenbach regarded his 1938 book as “his refutation of logical positivism” ([1994] 2005, p. 21; cf. [1985] 2005, p. 7) but he also gave no sign of dissent.5 There is, to be sure, this difference between the historical constructions of Reichenbach and Salmon: given his longer-term perspective Salmon allowed Carnap to be- come a logical empiricist, whereas Reichenbach was unable to report such redemption. Yet Reichenbach, as logical empiricism personiªed, remained central on his sketch of the development of analytic philosophy of science. Now there are, of course, many ways of telling a story of development and it is not my business here to deny the importance of Reichenbach ei- ther as a philosopher in his own right or as a moving force of twentieth- century scientiªc philosophy.6 What I do want to call into question, how- ever, is the reliability of this Reichenbachian account as far as the Vienna Circle is concerned. There are different ways in which this can be done. One can point out that the development of Vienna Circle philosophers away from what Reichenbach designated as the doctrines and preoccupa- tions of logical positivism was to a very large extent an internal matter prompted by internal opposition.7 One can point out that Carnap’s thought in particular underwent a development far beyond the embrace of 4. Readers will no doubt recall Popper’s self-incrimination (1974) or the frequent claims made on behalf of Quine’s “Two Dogmas” (1951) or Kuhn’s Structure (1962). Need- less to say, each such claim requires separate treatment. 5. There are, however, clear indications that Salmon made Reichenbach’s story his own: see his unqualiªed use of locutions like “the Vienna Circle of logical positivism” (1977, pp. 6 and 10), his Reichenbachian claim that phenomenalism was a “doctrine to which a number of early positivists had been committed” (1977, p. 47, without drawing any dis- tinction between logical positivism and its positivist predecessors) and footnote 2 of his ([1990] 2005, p. 244) where these points reoccur. (See also his 2005, pp. 3–4.) 6. Nor, I hasten to add, is it to deny the importance of Wesley Salmon himself or that of the Department of Philosophy which Rescher portrays as the for now terminal point of the Berlin School of Logical Empiricism. 7. For a detailed reconstruction of the Vienna Circle’s so-called protocol-sentence de- bate, see Uebel (2007). Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00086 by guest on 23 September 2021 60 “Logical Positivism”—“Logical Empiricism” the probabilistic realism that Reichenbach championed and so effected a radical reorientation of the ofªce even of scientiªc philosophy.8 On either of these arguments the Vienna Circle regains the doctrinal multidimen- sionality that the Reichenbachian account denies it. Here I shall pursue my objective differently, however, by engaging di- rectly with the history of the appellations which encapsulate Salmon’s Reichenbachian account.9 I shall review the use that leading members and early onlookers of the movement(s) made of the terms in question (and closely related ones), both in terms of self- and third person-ascriptions, to see whether the usage championed by Reichenbach reºects a distinction recognized by the philosophers involved themselves. It might be won- dered whether this is a proper deployment of scholarly effort. Aren’t names but “smoke and mirrors”—or “Schall und Rauch” as a Goethe had Faust replying to the “Gretchenfrage”?10 The quick answer is that even if they carry little signiªcance in and of themselves, nevertheless names so described are indexical signs and we may inquire what ªre their smoke bears witness to. We may do so especially in the case of a philosophical movement whose name is contested. The politics of naming, as it were, may indicate fractions and divisions that subsequent developments of the movement tend to obscure. So even if on grounds of doctrines held it can be shown that the Reichenbachian distinction is over-sharp and mislead- ing it might be held that the distinction does after all reveal important so- cial distinctions and that its use can be defended on their account. Whether this holds true is what is investigated below. 1. Anticipations of “Logical Empiricism,” “Logical Positivism” and “Neopositivism” Before turning to the inception proper of the term “logical positivism”, it must be noted that one individual anticipated more or less all three of the appellations in question—without himself being a protagonist of the movement at the time.11 Eino Kaila, a Finnish philosopher and psy- chologist, coined the phrase “logical empiricism” already in his 1926 monograph on probability theory (see von Wright 1979, p. xxvii) and in 8. For reconstructions of Carnap’s explicationist conception, see, e.g., Carus (2007) or Creath (2009). 9. A still further third appellation, “neopositivism,” must also be taken note of, but since it has a similarly controversial denotation as “logical positivism” it does not require extensive discussion on its own. 10. Goethe, Faust, Act 1, Scene 3. The Gretchenfrage to Faust was: “Und wie hälst Du es mit der Religion?” (And what is your attitude to religion?) 11. Von Wright (1979), Niiniluoto (1992) and Manninen (2009) note that at the time Kaila distanced himself from all extant forms of “positivism” as he understood it. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00086 by guest on 23 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 61 1930 published the ªrst in-depth, monograph-length critical study of Carnap’s Aufbau under the title “Logistic Neopositivism” (Der logistische Neupositivismus). Kaila, who had been in correspondence with Reichenbach since 1923 and quoted Schlick’s attribution to Einstein of the “principle of observ- ability” as the “supreme principle of all empirical philosophy” (see Manninen 2010, pp. 49–50), employed the phrase “logical empiricism” in order to describe the view that knowledge of reality was constituted by a system of probability statements that are viewed as a logical function of statements about the given. What connected the latter to the higher reaches of empirical knowledge was a probability logic. Kaila thus op- posed a “reductionist version of positivism” (von Wright 1979, p. xxviii). It has been suggested that Kaila coined the phrase “logical empiricism” with the then very recent psychologism disputes in mind, for he con- trasted its concern with “logical reasons” explicitly with a “psychologistic empiricism” (1926, p. 35, orig. emphasis) that attempted a causal expla- nation (see Manninen 2009, p. 50). By contrast (and probably unknown to Kaila), John Dewey had once called “orthodox logical empiricism” a view that he opposed, namely that “there can be ‘givens,’ sensations, percepts, etc., prior to and independent of thought or ideas, and that thought may be had by some kind of com- pounding or separating of the givens”, as opposed to what he believed, namely that “sensation or perception...issointernally fractionized or perplexed as to...require an idea, a meaning.” (1907, p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Philosophical Underpinnings of Educational Research
    The Philosophical Underpinnings of Educational Research Lindsay Mack Abstract This article traces the underlying theoretical framework of educational research. It outlines the definitions of epistemology, ontology and paradigm and the origins, main tenets, and key thinkers of the 3 paradigms; positivist, interpetivist and critical. By closely analyzing each paradigm, the literature review focuses on the ontological and epistemological assumptions of each paradigm. Finally the author analyzes not only the paradigm’s weakness but also the author’s own construct of reality and knowledge which align with the critical paradigm. Key terms: Paradigm, Ontology, Epistemology, Positivism, Interpretivism The English Language Teaching (ELT) field has moved from an ad hoc field with amateurish research to a much more serious enterprise of professionalism. More teachers are conducting research to not only inform their teaching in the classroom but also to bridge the gap between the external researcher dictating policy and the teacher negotiating that policy with the practical demands of their classroom. I was a layperson, not an educational researcher. Determined to emancipate myself from my layperson identity, I began to analyze the different philosophical underpinnings of each paradigm, reading about the great thinkers’ theories and the evolution of social science research. Through this process I began to examine how I view the world, thus realizing my own construction of knowledge and social reality, which is actually quite loose and chaotic. Most importantly, I realized that I identify most with the critical paradigm assumptions and that my future desired role as an educational researcher is to affect change and challenge dominant social and political discourses in ELT.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rhetoric of Positivism Versus Interpretivism: a Personal View1
    Weber/Editor’s Comments EDITOR’S COMMENTS The Rhetoric of Positivism Versus Interpretivism: A Personal View1 Many years ago I attended a conference on interpretive research in information systems. My goal was to learn more about interpretive research. In my Ph.D. education, I had studied primarily positivist research methods—for example, experiments, surveys, and field studies. I knew little, however, about interpretive methods. I hoped to improve my knowledge of interpretive methods with a view to using them in due course in my research work. A plenary session at the conference was devoted to a panel discussion on improving the acceptance of interpretive methods within the information systems discipline. During the session, a number of speakers criticized positivist research harshly. Many members in the audience also took up the cudgel to denigrate positivist research. If any other positivistic researchers were present at the session beside me, like me they were cowed. None of us dared to rise and speak in defence of positivism. Subsequently, I came to understand better the feelings of frustration and disaffection that many early interpretive researchers in the information systems discipline experienced when they attempted to publish their work. They felt that often their research was evaluated improperly and treated unfairly. They contended that colleagues who lacked knowledge of interpretive research methods controlled most of the journals. As a result, their work was evaluated using criteria attuned to positivism rather than interpretivism. My most-vivid memory of the panel session, however, was my surprise at the way positivism was being characterized by my colleagues in the session.
    [Show full text]
  • CAUSATION Chapter 4 Humean Reductionism
    CAUSATION Chapter 4 Humean Reductionism – Analyses in Terms of Nomological Conditions Many different accounts of causation, of a Humean reductionist sort, have been advanced, but four types are especially important. Of these, three involve analytical reductionism. First, there are approaches which start out from the general notion of a law of nature, then define the ideas of necessary, and sufficient, nomological conditions, and, finally, employ the latter concepts to explain what it is for one state of affairs to cause another. Secondly, there are approaches that employ subjunctive conditionals, either in an attempt to give a purely counterfactual analysis of causation (David Lewis, 1973 and 1979), or as a supplement to other notions, such as that of agency (Georg von Wright, 1971). Thirdly, there are approaches that employ the idea of probability, either to formulate a purely probabilistic analysis (Hans Reichenbach, 1956; I. J. Good, 1961 and 1962; Patrick Suppes, 1970; Ellery Eells, 1991; D. H. Mellor, 1995) - where the central idea is that a cause must, in some way, make its effect more likely -- or as a supplement to other ideas, such as that of a continuous process (Wesley Salmon, 1984). Finally, a fourth approach involves the idea of offering, not an analytic reduction of causation, but a contingent identification of causation, as it is in this world, with a relation whose only constituents are non- causal properties and relations. One idea, for example, is that causal processes can be identified with continuous processes in which relevant quantities are conserved (Wesley Salmon, 1997 and 1998; Phil Dowe, 2000a and 2000b).
    [Show full text]
  • Metaphysics Today and Tomorrow*
    1 Metaphysics Today and Tomorrow* Raphaël Millière École normale supérieure, Paris – October 2011 Translated by Mark Ohm with the assistance of Leah Orth, Jon Cogburn, and Emily Beck Cogburn “By metaphysics, I do not mean those abstract considerations of certain imaginary properties, the principal use of which is to furnish the wherewithal for endless dispute to those who want to dispute. By this science I mean the general truths which can serve as principles for the particular sciences.” Malebranche Dialogues on Metaphysics and Religion 1. The interminable agony of metaphysics Throughout the twentieth century, numerous philosophers sounded the death knell of metaphysics. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Rudolf Carnap, Martin Heidegger, Gilbert Ryle, J. L. Austin, Jacques Derrida, Jürgen Habermas, Richard Rorty, and, henceforth, Hilary Putnam: a great many tutelary figures have extolled the rejection, the exceeding, the elimination, or the deconstruction of first philosophy. All these necrological chronicles do not have the same radiance, the same seriousness, nor the same motivations, but they all agree to dismiss the discipline, which in the past was considered “the queen of the sciences”, with a violence at times comparable to the prestige it commanded at the time of its impunity. Even today, certain philosophers hastily spread the tragic news with contempt for philosophical inquiry, as if its grave solemnity bestowed upon it some obviousness. Thus, Franco Volpi writes: ‘Grand metaphysics is dead!’ is the slogan which applies to the majority of contemporary philosophers, whether continentals or of analytic profession. They all treat metaphysics as a dead dog.1 In this way, the “path of modern thought” would declare itself vociferously “anti- metaphysical and finally post-metaphysical”.
    [Show full text]
  • A Centennial Volume for Rudolf Carnap and Hans Reichenbach
    W. Spohn (Ed.) Erkenntnis Orientated: A Centennial Volume for Rudolf Carnap and Hans Reichenbach Rudolf Carnap was born on May 18, 1891, and Hans Reichenbach on September 26 in the same year. They are two of the greatest philosophers of this century, and they are eminent representatives of what is perhaps the most powerful contemporary philosophical movement. Moreover, they founded the journal Erkenntnis. This is ample reason for presenting, on behalf of Erkenntnis, a collection of essays in honor of them and their philosophical work. I am less sure, however, whether it is a good time for resuming their philosophical impact; their work still is rather part than historical basis of the present philosophical melting-pot. Their basic philosophical theses have currently, it may seem, not so high a standing, but their impact can be seen in numerous detailed issues; they have opened or pushed forward lively fields of research which are still very actively pursued not only within philosophy, but also in many neighboring disciplines. Whatever the present balance of opinions about their philosophical ideas, there is something even more basic in their philosophy than their tenets which is as fresh, as stimulating, as exemplary as ever. I have in mind their way of philosophizing, their conception of how to Reprinted from `ERKENNTNIS', 35: 1-3, do philosophy. It is always a good time for reinforcing that conception; and if this volume 1991, IV, 471 p. would manage to do so, it would fully serve its purpose. Printed book Hardcover ▶ 194,99 € | £175.50 | $269.00 ▶ *208,64 € (D) | 214,49 € (A) | CHF 260.25 eBook Available from your bookstore or ▶ springer.com/shop MyCopy Printed eBook for just ▶ € | $ 24.99 ▶ springer.com/mycopy Order online at springer.com ▶ or for the Americas call (toll free) 1-800-SPRINGER ▶ or email us at: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Rudolf Carnap Papers, 1920-1968
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf7q2nb520 No online items Finding Aid for the Rudolf Carnap papers, 1920-1968 Processed by UCLA Library Special Collections staff; machine-readable finding aid created by Caroline Cubé UCLA Library Special Collections UCLA Library Special Collections staff Room A1713, Charles E. Young Research Library Box 951575 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/special/scweb/ © 1998 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Note Arts and Humanities --PhilosophyHistory --History, University of California --History, UC Los AngelesGeographical (By Place) --University of California --University of California Los Angeles Finding Aid for the Rudolf Carnap 1029 1 papers, 1920-1968 Finding Aid for the Rudolf Carnap papers, 1920-1968 Collection number: 1029 UCLA Library Special Collections UCLA Library Special Collections staff Los Angeles, CA Contact Information UCLA Library Special Collections staff UCLA Library Special Collections Room A1713, Charles E. Young Research Library Box 951575 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575 Telephone: 310/825-4988 (10:00 a.m. - 4:45 p.m., Pacific Time) Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/special/scweb/ Processed by: UCLA Library Special Collections staff, 1998 Encoded by: Caroline Cubé Online finding aid edited by: Josh Fiala, June 2002 © 1998 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Descriptive Summary Title: Rudolf Carnap papers, Date (inclusive): 1920-1968 Collection number: 1029 Creator: Carnap, Rudolf, 1891-1970 Extent: 56 boxes (28 linear ft.) Repository: University of California, Los Angeles. Library Special Collections.
    [Show full text]
  • Hempel and Confirmation Theory
    Hempel and Confirmation Theory Jan Sprenger* June 15, 2020 Carl Gustav Hempel (1905–1997) was one of the primary exponents of logical empiricism. As a student and member of the Gesellschaft für em- pirische Philosophie in Berlin, alongside Reichenbach and Grelling, he wit- nessed the emergence of logical empiricism as a philosophical program. From the mid-1930s onwards, his contributions shaped its development, too. Hempel studied primarily in Göttingen and Berlin, but in 1929/30, he also spent a semester in Vienna studying with Carnap and partici- pated in the activities of the Vienna Circle. Both societies joined forces for organizing scientific events, and founded the journal Erkenntnis in 1930, where many seminal papers of logical empiricism were published, with Carnap and Reichenbach as editors. While the work of the Berlin philosophers is congenial to the project of the Vienna Circle, there are important differences, too. Neither Hempel nor his mentor Reichenbach identified “scientific philosophy” with the project of cleansing science of meaningless statements (e.g., Carnap 1930). Rather, Hempel extensively used a method that Carnap would apply in later works on probability and confirmation (Carnap 1950, 1952): expli- cation, that is, the replacement of a vague and imprecise pre-theoretical concept (e.g., “confirmation”) by a fruitful and precise concept (e.g., a formal confirmation criterion). Relying on the method of explication, Hempel developed adequacy conditions on a qualitative concept of con- firmation (Hempel 1943, 1945a,b), a probabilistic measure of degree of *Contact information: Center for Logic, Language and Cognition (LLC), Department of Philosophy and Education Sciences, Università degli Studi di Torino, Via Sant’Ottavio 20, 10124 Torino, Italy.
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Empiricism / Positivism Some Empiricist Slogans
    4/13/16 Logical empiricism / positivism Some empiricist slogans o Hume’s 18th century book-burning passage Key elements of a logical positivist /empiricist conception of science o Comte’s mid-19th century rejection of n Motivations for post WW1 ‘scientific philosophy’ ‘speculation after first & final causes o viscerally opposed to speculation / mere metaphysics / idealism o Duhem’s late 19th/early 20th century slogan: o a normative demarcation project: to show why science ‘save the phenomena’ is and should be epistemically authoritative n Empiricist commitments o Hempel’s injunction against ‘detours n Logicism through the realm of unobservables’ Conflicts & Memories: The First World War Vienna Circle Maria Marchant o Debussy: Berceuse héroique, Élégie So - what was the motivation for this “revolutionary, written war-time Paris (1914), heralds the ominous bugle call of war uncompromising empricism”? (Godfrey Smith, Ch. 2) o Rachmaninov: Études-Tableaux Op. 39, No 8, 5 “some of the most impassioned, fervent work the composer wrote” Why the “massive intellectual housecleaning”? (Godfrey Smith) o Ireland: Rhapsody, London Nights, London Pieces a “turbulant, virtuosic work… Consider the context: World War I / the interwar period o Prokofiev: Visions Fugitives, Op. 22 written just before he fled as a fugitive himself to the US (1917); military aggression & sardonic irony o Ravel: Le Tombeau de Couperin each of six movements dedicated to a friend who died in the war x Key problem (1): logicism o Are there, in fact, “rules” governing inference
    [Show full text]
  • 1 a Tale of Two Interpretations
    Notes 1 A Tale of Two Interpretations 1. As Georges Dicker puts it, “Hume’s influence on contemporary epistemology and metaphysics is second to none ... ” (1998, ix). Note, too, that Hume’s impact extends beyond philosophy. For consider the following passage from Einstein’s letter to Moritz Schlick: Your representations that the theory of rel. [relativity] suggests itself in positivism, yet without requiring it, are also very right. In this also you saw correctly that this line of thought had a great influence on my efforts, and more specifically, E. Mach, and even more so Hume, whose Treatise of Human Nature I had studied avidly and with admiration shortly before discovering the theory of relativity. It is very possible that without these philosophical studies I would not have arrived at the solution (Einstein 1998, 161). 2. For a brief overview of Hume’s connection to naturalized epistemology, see Morris (2008, 472–3). 3. For the sake of convenience, I sometimes refer to the “traditional reading of Hume as a sceptic” as, e.g., “the sceptical reading of Hume” or simply “the sceptical reading”. Moreover, I often refer to those who read Hume as a sceptic as, e.g., “the sceptical interpreters of Hume” or “the sceptical inter- preters”. By the same token, I sometimes refer to those who read Hume as a naturalist as, e.g., “the naturalist interpreters of Hume” or simply “the natu- ralist interpreters”. And the reading that the naturalist interpreters support I refer to as, e.g., “the naturalist reading” or “the naturalist interpretation”. 4. This is not to say, though, that dissenting voices were entirely absent.
    [Show full text]
  • Moritz Schlick and Bas Van Fraassen: Two Different Perspectives on Causality and Quantum Mechanics Richard Dawid1
    Moritz Schlick and Bas van Fraassen: Two Different Perspectives on Causality and Quantum Mechanics Richard Dawid1 Moritz Schlick’s interpretation of the causality principle is based on Schlick’s understanding of quantum mechanics and on his conviction that quantum mechanics strongly supports an empiricist reading of causation in his sense. The present paper compares the empiricist position held by Schlick with Bas van Fraassen’s more recent conception of constructive empiricism. It is pointed out that the development from Schlick’s understanding of logical empiricism to constructive empiricism reflects a difference between the understanding of quantum mechanics endorsed by Schlick and the understanding that had been established at the time of van Fraassen’s writing. 1: Introduction Moritz Schlick’s ideas about causality and quantum mechanics dealt with a topic that was at the forefront of research in physics and philosophy of science at the time. In the present article, I want to discuss the plausibility of Schlick’s ideas within the scientific context of the time and compare it with a view based on a modern understanding of quantum mechanics. Schlick had already written about his understanding of causation in [Schlick 1920] before he set out to develop a new account of causation in “Die Kausalität in der gegenwärtigen Physik” [Schlick 1931]. The very substantial differences between the concepts of causality developed in the two papers are due to important philosophical as well as physical developments. Philosophically, [Schlick 1931] accounts for Schlick’s shift from his earlier position of critical realism towards his endorsement of core tenets of logical empiricism.
    [Show full text]
  • Feminist Empiricism Draws in Various Ways
    2 FEMINIST EMPIRICISM CATHERINE E. HUNDLEBY eminist empiricism draws in various ways developing new accounts of agency in knowl- on the philosophical tradition of empiri- edge emerges as the second theme in feminist F cism, which can be defined as epistemol- empiricism. ogy that gives primary importance to knowledge Most feminist empiricists employ the meth- based on experience. Feminist demands for atten- odology for developing epistemology known as tion to women’s experiences suggest that empiri- naturalized or naturalist epistemology. Naturalism cism can be a promising resource for developing is controversial, but it welcomes disputation, a feminist account of knowledge. Yet feminists takes up new resources for epistemology on an also value empiricism’s purchase on science and ongoing basis, and encourages multiple approaches the empiricist view that knowers’ abilities depend to the evaluation of knowledge. This pluralism on their experiences and their experiential histo- undercuts naturalism’s and empiricism’s conser- ries, including socialization and psychological vative tendencies and imbues current formula- development. tions of empiricism with radical potential. This chapter explores the attractions of empiricism for feminists. Feminist empiricist analysis ranges from broad considerations about FEMINIST ATTRACTION TO EMPIRICISM popular understandings to technical analysis of narrowly defined scientific fields. Whatever the Empiricism traces in the philosophy of the scope, feminist reworkings of empiricism have global North as far back as Aristotle,1 but it is two central themes. The first theme is the inter- classically associated with the 18th-century play among values in knowledge, especially British philosophers, John Locke, George connecting traditionally recognized empirical Berkeley, and David Hume.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Metaphysics: 1. Agnosticism (Qv). 2. Logical Positivism (See Scientific Empiricism (1))
    Anti-metaphysics: 1. Agnosticism (q.v.). 2. Logical Positivism (see Scientific Empiricism (1)) holds that those metaphysical statements which are not confirmable by experiences (see Verification 4, 5) have no cognitive meaning and hence are pseudo-statements (see Meaning, Kinds of, 1, 5). — R.C. Basic Sentences, Protocol Sentences: Sentences formulating the result of observations or perceptions or other experiences, furnishing the basis for empirical verification or confirmation (see Verification). Some philosophers take sentences concerning observable properties of physical things as basic sentences, others take sentences concerning sense-data or perceptions. The sentences of the latter kind are regarded by some philosophers as completely verifiable, while others believe that all factual sentences can be confirmed only to some degree. See Scientific Empiricism. — R.C. Formal: l. In the traditional use: valid independently of the specific subject-matter; having a merely logical meaning (see Meaning, Kinds of, 3). 2. Narrower sense, in modern logic: independent of, without reference to meaning (compare Semiotic, 3). — R.C. Intersubjective: Used and understood by, or valid for different subjects. Especially, i. lan- guage, i. concepts, i. knowledge, i. confirmability (see Verification). The i. character of science is especially emphasized by Scientific Empiricism (g. v., 1 C). —R.C. Meaning, Kinds of: In semiotic (q. v.) several kinds of meaning, i.e. of the function of an expression in language and the content it conveys, are distinguished. 1. An expression (sen- tence) has cognitive (or theoretical, assertive) meaning, if it asserts something and hence is either true or false. In this case, it is called a cognitive sentence or (cognitive, genuine) statement; it has usually the form of a declarative sentence.
    [Show full text]