From: Max More (maxmore@primenet.com)
Date: Fri Apr 25 1997 - 16:54:06 MDT
At 03:43 PM 4/25/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Max More:
>> Philosophical nit-pick: The logical positivists would not say this. They
>> would say that the question of the existence of atoms is meaningless *if*
>> they cannot be observed. Any statement that cannot be broken down into
>> directly observable entities is meaningless to the logical positivists.
>
>What would "directly observable" mean? Eyes? Light microscope?
>Accelerator? Where does one draw the line?
Good questions, and they point to major problems with logical positivism.
Today's descendents of the logical positivists are the empiricists like van
Fraasen. I find far more plausible the scientific realist approach which
lets you talk meaningfully about entities that cannot be directly observed
(with unaided human senses) or observed at all (they can be inferred by
their effects).
For an excellent argument on this issue between the two viewpoints, see
IMAGES OF SCIENCE: ESSAYS ON REALISM AND EMPIRICISM, edited by Paul M.
Chuchland and Clifford A. Hooker. (Univ. of Chicago, 1985)
Max
Max More, Ph.D.
more@extropy.org
http://www.primenet.com/~maxmore
President, Extropy Institute, Editor, Extropy
exi-info@extropy.org, http://www.extropy.org
(310) 398-0375
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:23 MST