On Balance, This House Would Assert Logical Positivism!

I must say I am a little disheartened for I expected a longer and more systematic argument. I shall begin by negating Logical Positivism and the arguments of Proposition; I shall then go on to argue my own system of truth: that is Pragmatism. You see my opponent never as such presented any arguments in support of Logical Positivism. A quick read of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will give you at the very least six arguments, my opponent presents none. 1. Of Logical Positivism:(1.1) The theory of Logical Positivism can be summarized in the following maxim: 'for all knowledge that possess any meaning, it must be experimentally verifiable'. This means that Logical Positivism is a proposition which states that for propositions to be meaningful they must be empirically verifiable. (1.2) Logical Positivism as a proposition cannot itself be empirically verified, since it is a philosophical theory, Logical Positivism is in itself inherently unprovable. This means that if Logical Positivism is sount, then Logical Positivism is unsound, hence creating a self-defeating theory. This is my first critique of Logical Positivism, that it is a self-refuting theory. My opponent must tackle this argument as it is most important. (1.3) I do not really understand my opponent's arguments. I am not arguing against propositions having meaning, I am simply stating that they can have meaning even if they cannot be empirically verifiable. (1.4) Another issue with Logical Positivism is that it makes any form of metaphysics impossible, while I will not argue for metaphysics right now, I will argue for Mathematics. The field of Mathematics which is known as Pure Mathematics is then made meaningless by Logical Positivism. I would argue that Pure Mathematics is accurate because it possess the conceptualization of necessity, the exact reason why we have given experimental technique any credence. We know that experimental results are accurate because they necessarily yield the same results. Mathematics is even more accurate as it results the same result for every person, hence it has a 'conceptualization of necessity'. Every person who solves: x^2+3x+2 will get the exact same answer, which clearly falsifies Logical Positivism. 2. Of Pragmatism:(2.1) I will now, having shown the self-refuting and anti-reasonable approach of Logical Positivism present a counter theory of knowledge. This theory, that is Pragmatism can be summarized in the following maxim: 'To ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one should consider what practical consequences might result from the truth of that conception—and the sum of these consequences constitute the entire meaning of the conception. '[1] This means that something is meaningful is a practical consequence of that proposition. This means to say: God exists may be untrue or true, but unlike in Logical Positivism where this statement is devout of meaning, it does possess a meaning according to Pragmatic theories because the proposition God exists makes a practical difference. (2.2) This also allows Pure Mathematics to possess a meaning because the answers may make a practical difference even when it is not possible to demonstrate Mathematics experimentally. Also Pragmatism, unlike Logical Positivism, is not self-defeating. (2.3) To conclude Pragmatism allows metaphysics, and reasonable statements because it allows one to attribute meaning to statements which are theoretical but make a practical difference. The simple proof of Pragmatism consists in that these statements which are denied by Logical Positivism are shown to be true or false through reason. Since, taking our previous example, there are arguments for and against God it must follow that the proposition: God exists is not meaningless. Thus showing that Logical Positivism is little more than tripe. [1]Charles Pierce, 1905; Collected Papers (5.9) [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://real-philosophy.livejournal.com...[4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[5]http://www.phy.duke.edu...[6]http://plato.stanford.edu...[7]http://plato.stanford.edu...[8]https://www.academia.edu...