Demarcation of science: Logical positivism

A statement or proposition is meaningful only if it can be empirically verified or is tautological (i.e., true by definition, such as in mathematics or logic)

O’s need to be expressed in a language that is universal and intersubjective. A logical language where there can be mistakes - otherwise it’s meaningless Formal mode of speech

Observation sentences (O) Atomic propositions X is Y

Logical positivism is not a theory of science theory but more a theory of meaning

Typically, T does not deductively imply O; rather, it is T&A that deductively implies O (here, T is a theory, O is an observation statement, and A is a set of auxiliary assumptions) Importantly, the auxiliary assumptions should be independently testable

Statements that cannot be proven true or false

Shared by more than one conscious mind

Passing from singular statements to universal statements

We cannot prove by induction, i.e. truth of conclusion doesn’t follow from truth of premises

Statement with pseudowords in them Statement with ill-formed syntax

The physical language is universal and intersubjective. “psychology […] may formulate its sentences as it pleases—these sentences will […] be translatable into physical language”

Logical positivism is against metaphysics because it views metaphysical statements as meaningless, unempirical, and speculative

An approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.

An external reality that our theories aim to describe, though our understanding is always mediated by our conceptual frameworks

X is the word. Must answer the questions: * What sentence is S deducible from, and what sentences are deducible from S? * Under what conditions is S supposed to be true, and under what conditions false? * How is S to be verified? What is the meaning of S?

Regarding something abstract as a material thing

The original meaning of a word

a = any word S(a) = the elementary sentence in which it occurs For “a” being meaningful: - The empirical criteria for a are known - It has been stipulated from what protocol sentences “S(a)” is deducible - The Truth-conditions for “S(a)” are foxed - The method of verification of “S(a)” is known

Does it make sense to say if it is valid. The quality of being based on valid reason or good judgement.

Whether something is valid or not (True or false)

The decision about truth and falsehood lies in the protocol sentences. Requirement: O’s need to be expressed in a language that is universal and intersubjective

Either it is or it is not A ∨¬A

It is and it is not A ∧¬A

Non-O’s. They do not state anything we can observe. a T-statement is only meaningful if (an) O-statement(s) follow(s) from it or from a Epistemological View: How is T to be verified?