The Demarcation Problem: Verificationism

Подписаться 3,4 тыс.

Просмотров 6 тыс.

50% 1

I have books on a wide variety of topics from philosophy to the social sciences to technology for sale on Amazon, Apple Books, and Google Play Books! All of my ebooks are currently discounted to $6. Just search either for Andrew Chapman or for The Autodidact’s Toolkit.
In this video, we cover seven topics:
1. The Demarcation Problem
2. The Relationship between Demarcation, Methodology, and Progress 3. Logical Positivism
4. The Verifiability Criterion of Meaning
5. Verifiability as the Demarcation Criterion
6. The Consequences of Verifiability as the Demarcation Criterion
7. The Central Problem with Verificationism and Verifiability
This video is a supplement to AJ Ayer's article, "The Elimination of Metaphysics" which can be accessed here: drive.google.com/open?id=0B_T...
See more from Andrew at: www.andrewdchapman.org

Опубликовано:

20 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 11

@user-hx1mo9cm6m 11 месяцев назад

hai

@climatedeceptionnetwork4122 2 года назад

I gather that we're condemned to pragmatism, in the final analysis?

@Gil7460 Год назад

Same

@azzym8794 8 лет назад

What is the significance of this whole business? There may very well not be any seperation between science and non science and thus ne need for as such for a so called demarcation problem. I see no significance in this entire diatribe.

@nathanketsdever3150 2 года назад

It is an impossible question, but not an unimportant one. It's worth pointing out that science for Aristotle was different than what Francis Bacon was talking about. David Hume's project seems to be problematic however, to the extent that it attempts to do away with non-science (aka the humanities and perhaps even the social sciences). I don't think you can even demarcate the beginning of the Enlightenment, given there were thinkers before the Enlightenment who foreshadowed the Enlightenment. When people use "pseudo-science" is such a misunderstood notion. To attempt to label all non-science as pseudo-science is a kind of strawperson and category mistake. Just to be clear, thats not what Andrew Chapman does as far as I can tell.

@climatedeceptionnetwork4122 2 года назад

On its face, I agree. However, in the sense of "How do we know?", political ideology (Trumpism), and other broad issues, falsification and demarcation are big. IMHO.

@Gil7460 Год назад

One reason would be: The next time you hear the claim "It's scientifically proven", how can you know that it really is. It might be pseudo-scientifically proven. The claim loses credibility. I grant that there might not be a way to systematically distinguish the two from each other, the issue might be unresolveble. But to keep asking the question helps us to refine our definitions of science and get us closer to some rigid criterion.

@Sunfried1 2 года назад

Your plodding, halting style of talking is a tad excessive.

@climatedeceptionnetwork4122 2 года назад

Perhaps for you, but for me, I need the lingering moments to let it sink in. My concern is dealing with religious fanaticism and the coming diminution of the US Liberal Democracy. "How do we know?"