Episode

Philosophize This! Clips: / @philosophizethisclips
Get more:
Website: www.philosophizethis.org/
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Find the podcast:
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/2Shpxw7...
RSS: www.philosophizethis.libsyn.org/
Be social:
Twitter: / iamstephenwest
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
TikTok: / philosophizethispodcast
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow
Thank you for making the show possible. 🙂

[@Hulloder]

This really is one of the best podcasts ever. Thank you so much.

[@silencio4660]

Yessssss! Another episode! Keep up the good work Stephen!

[@barnumcastillo2789]

Thank you, I needed a deeper knowledge about the movement to understand one of the chapter of "Consilience the Unity of Knowledge"

[@teodoragoidea4005]

Very enjoyable and helpful podcast!

[@hansenng1028]

This is such a gem

[@susanwright6873]

Really excellent work showing the path of logical positivism through Kuhn.

[@paytoncordova8598]

Love this podcast!

[@RobNoonanic]

Me too!

[@NS-wo6ze]

Fantastically clear and cogent

[@mohamedmilad1]

Good insight. Thanks

[@poparasan]

Quine, is pronounced /kwaɪn/

[@JDesrosiers]

One of the most interesting episode so far

[@MeserithSama]

Subscribed. Good stuff.

[@Oners82]

Wow, I have never heard anybody pronounce "Quine" like that before lol!

[@Dadovdeon]

thanks for this :-)

[@james1098778910]

Could you give an example for the current scientific premises determining what is verifiable?

[@johnnowakowski4062]

Thank you for posting this. I needed this explanation to understand why it is untenable as a logical theory...

[@brandonjimenez902]

Brother you been MIA(MISSING IN ACTION) ADMIRE YOUR HARD WORK KEEP IT UP !!!!!! 💪💪💪💪💪💘💘💘💘💘💘💘💘💘💘💪💪💪💪💪💪💪💪💪💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯

[@parvayalar3686]

Did Thomas Kuhn actually say falsification doesn't work? Because very foundation of falsification is to try to disprove the current scientific theory. To say it is reinforced seems to be more of a claim pertaining the social group of scientists rather than the methodology itself. Secondly, while scientific revolution did indeed bring changes to our basic premises, it in no way completely invalidates prior work. What it does is simply adding detail to older works. Say the logical equivalent of finding the weight of 10 apples in Kg accuracy and then to milligram accuracy.

[@jamessheffield4173]

When Dr Johnson kicked the stone “After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, ‘I refute it thus.'”(Boswell’s Life of Samuel Johnson, askaphilosopher.org/2015/10/13/when-dr-johnson-kicked-the-stone/

[@CancelledPhilosopher]

Street epistemology sounds a lot like logical positivism, which is why I have similar criticisms of both. Hume was the first of many rationalists to start pointing out hundreds of years ago that according to logical positivism's own logic, scientific and empirical methods of varification are unreliable and unfalsifiable, because they're socially constructed.

[@dharmadefender3932]

Hume was an empiricist and if anything he'd strongly agree with Positivism. Also socially constructed doesn't mean unreliable.

[@Edruezzi]

X

[@robstorm6867]

I think arguing that different breakthroughs in science and the various scientific revolutions *always* threw out the science that came before it is ridiculous. Finding that certain planetary motions were not as they seem did not invalidate all mathematics and understandings of physics that came before it. Even with relativity, the science of Newton is still used today everywhere. Einstein did not come even close to making everything Newton said untrue or to be thrown out. Finding that there are more complexities to the details of any science does not completely invalidated prior findings or their usefulness. Verification as a process is a fine way to live by and inform your actions by if 99.999% of your tests are predictable under it.

[@orengordon7921]

agreed, he seem to exaggerate the impact that new way of thinking had on the old

[@christinemartin63]

If language is imperfect (which it is), does that mean that any endeavor involving words should cease? Curiosity and progress would go out the window.

[@Learningmadeeasy632]

Can I get a transcript of this video? please.

[@politics4270]

❤❤

[@jamesbarlow6423]

I'm using up West's podcasts like a drunkard!

[@gda295]

👍

[@Edruezzi]

Circa 12:00 is erroneous. The black swan problem shows the problem of induction and does not mean that science is unverifiable.

[@Und3rtow420]

holy shit it must be christmas

[@LunaLu-00]

Scientific Progress is not guided by rationality as much as its influenced by sociology. The question is *how much* social context is influencing scientific methods.

[@angusmcintosh1857]

Why didn't the Logical Positivists simply substitute refutability by scientific method as their test for meaningful propositions instead of verification? A meaningful statement is then not one which can be confirmed by scientific method (of which there are none as you point out), but one which is in principle capable of refutation by experiment or mathematical reason. This would work far better as a way of sifting metaphysical propositions from meaningful philosophical ones. So why did they allow their movement to be unnecessarily vulnerable on this front by insisting on verification?

[@danielwa4819]

I would say that refutability faces the same set of problems as verificationism, namely that one cannot confirm/refute a statement in isolation but always test it alongside the entire theory and methodology. It will not be rational to throw away the entire theory simply because of a few deviant results. Empirical verifiability is always underdetermined by any given set of data. So empirical verifiability can at most be a pragmatic principle but never adequately separate meaningful from meaningless statements. Much more damning for logical verifiability comes from the work of Godel. Any consistent logical system that was powerful enough to model mathematics will necessarily have a "Godel statement" that was true but unprovable from within that system. Carnap was aware of this and attempted to salvage his theory by appealing to Tarski's meta-language to prove the original language/system, but at the cost of recognizing an infinite regress of metalanguages. Preempting Quine's holism, Carnap finally admitted that L-rules (rules of logic) and P-rules (rules of empirical description) are only different in degree, and that there are no immutable rules for either.

[@ryleysiscoe2038]

I'm just beginning to dip my toes into philosophy but I think Karl Popper goes down that route a bit when he writes about falsifiability. I'm not sure though.

[@dharmadefender3932]

It hadn't been thought up by Karl Popper yet.

[@pavlovkuki6616]

Very helpful.. Grateful enough. But it would be better with, small diagrams, headings.. But not colorful graphics, fast editing.. A fine middle.. Just an admirer's comment. From India

[@crocodilearms2093]

Are you offering? He works a day job, too, plus has a real life.

[@nonamed56]

9:50

[@rodrigodiazcasas384]

Now, wait a second. I think there is a big big hole in the last part of the podcast. You say that any theory of any given time is "validated" by the science paradigm that run things at that particular era. Ok, that is understandable. BUT. We can certainly agree that methods of validation HAVE progressive been becoming more "transparent" and less dependent on circumstances: i think that Poppers falsacionism represents its climax: if you went back in time and applied Popper's principle, WITH THE GIVEN TECHNOLOGIES OF THAT TIME, you would be definitly closer to truth than with any mithology or philosophic rudiments. At least, you would be able to discard that wich is imposible to affirm and would have to wait for new technologies to do so. So YES, validation depends on time, but NO, i do not think that a paradigm shift erases completly what has been done (specially in relation with cientific methods) . There is a certain... progress (im not a fan of the word by i feel it does apply here)... in history of science. A progress further into objectivity (that can never be exausted).

[@elijaguy]

All white swans are white. Unless the lamp is blue.

[@LordDTwigo]

There seems to be alot of conflating of words here. For example, conflating absolute with verifiable, is the issue with Hume, a very small and minor tweak in the definitions would allow the Logical Positivists to continue without actually changing their stance in the slightest. Also during the Bachelor and Marriage monologue, there is an issue with conflating the human experince necessary for a human mind to understand these things to verify them, and the things themselves that we have defined which simply are. There is no issue here, you've simply conflated the human experince necessary to understand with the actual events or things themselves. Which no human experince is needed for, the human experince is only relevant when a human is trying to understand or communicate these ideas, its self evident.

[@Human_Evolution-]

You are pronouncing Willard van Orman Quines name wrong.

[@platypux]

Well put H.E. So trivial, but also deeply baffling.The anglicization of "Wittgenstein" is bad enough , but how is it possible for somebody this philosophically knowledgable to mispronounce the name of the foremost analytical philosopher of the 20th C. ? Its almost as bad as pronouncing the W in Wittgenstein like the W in WTF.

[@platypux]

But maybe not as bad as misspelling "knowledgeable."

[@saimbhat6243]

You mixing your opinions in explanations is very annoying. I don't care for your opinions nor do i think they matter. Just present what actual authors have written about it.

[@MarxismIsACancerousReligion]

Isn’t life and existence a result of a meta physical amount of complexity? Not simply 1 or a few things but practically everything is a result of everything else. Isn’t it technically meta physical all we see and can’t see?