Talk:Positivism

message: The new introductory paragraph is much better than anything previous, good work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.171.21.151 (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Much Better (as of March 12, 2007) (and again on Aug 28, 2009)

message: Though not an expert in this field, I take issue with declaring the stance of others, philosophers, ecofeminists, ect. who do not adopt such a position as being "antiscience" at the end of the entry.  They may be antipositivist, but I know of many scientists who are fully aware of scentific limitations, but would never call their beliefs in such areas as being antiscience.  They simply believe that science does not apply.  I think it gives the wrong impression, and perhaps supports positivist thinking be declaring others who disagree with its extremes as taking antiscience positions.
-- Corey Wade August 16,2006
:For some reason positivist tend to become fanatical, or is it the other way around? A non-positivist, but still scientific, stance is very common. Said: Rursus (☻) 07:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Antiscience?

message: I agree.
My life's work has centered on critically understanding positivism--meaning not Comte, specifically, but rather, the more inclusive and important sense of the term "positivism" which is synonomous with "scientism" (and which is invoked by e.g. Stephen Hawking when he writes, "I am a positivist").
Noting that the article as it stood was not only biased but seemed to actually mimic the rhetoric of Carnap (arguably the sharpest positivist thinker ever), I simply added a few quick questions I would ask a positivist (mostly of an epistemological nature) (others later dignified the questions with a sub-title and then numerals).
An unbiased account is called for, one which explains both senses of the term. (As to the not uncommon suggestion that the larger sense of the term can be handled by the term "scientism" exclusively, , the two main problems with this are that the term "scientism" is traditionally pejorative, and that in that instance one who subscribes to the philosophical view in question would be known as a "scientist" [!].) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rflacco (talk • contribs) 02:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientism is definitely pejorative, as the term was correctly applied by Karl Popper, former member of the Vienna Circle and philosophical savior of modern science!  Scientism properly refers to the grandiose excesses of early 20th C positivists. Unfortunately some scientists still adhere to this faith. But when S.Hawking says he is a positivist, he does not mean he is scientistic. Positivism v. realism in physics is another story.  There is a similar and fundamental divide between mathematicians who believe that mathematics is psychological and those who believe that mathematics have a reality independent of human thought.Vendrov 08:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Beside that, I've heard somewhere, that positivism originally was an insane sect in France, where all members screamed "Hollaa! Hollaa!" each day to the annoyment of the neighbors, and that they ran naked through the villages, in the 1800-ths. That it became a "philosophy" (a very bad quality one) was more like a practical joke that degenerated, such as Ku Klux Klan. At least I've heard so, if I remember correctly. Said: Rursus ☻ 11:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It isn't good enough

message: In section Other positivist thinkers – Hawking erects Popper as a major Positivist thinker. Hmm – this pertaining to "It isn't good enough". I agree too. As I've been taught, Popper is a major critic towards positivism, more like a critical rationalist, so either Hawking has a wider definition of positivist, or propones a Popper-revised variant of positivism, or has confused things. This means that the Hawking section doesn't belong under Other positivist thinkers, unless a certain Hawking-positivism, containing Popper, can be presented in the text. Said: Rursus ☻ 11:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beside that, I've heard somewhere, that positivism originally was an insane sect in France, where all members screamed "Hollaa! Hollaa!" each day to the annoyment of the neighbors, and that they ran naked through the villages, in the 1800-ths. That it became a "philosophy" (a very bad quality one) was more like a practical joke that degenerated, such as Ku Klux Klan. At least I've heard so, if I remember correctly. Said: Rursus ☻ 11:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Positivism, S. Hawking and Popper

message: I had been under the impression that positivism was, in the philosophy of science, the belief that entities that are not directly observable (such as electrons) are metaphysical and should be treated only as mathematical postulates. Perhaps I am wrong on this point?
--Adam Lewis 05:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Positivism in the philosophy of science

message: I'm sorry. I'm a nascent student of philosophy but the Positivism (philosophy) page as far as I understand it is very off. It seems to confuse it with some other things or just misstate them. This is not my area of focus within philosophy but I still believe that I am correct. If am mistaken can someone point me to a source valdating it to allay my fears?
Check out logical positivism for the philosophical movement.  The positivist program in science is more rightly studied in the philosophy of science.Vendrov 08:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for citation of sources

message: The questions posed at the end of this article seem to be pure rhetoric, with no backing whatsoever to justify the assumptions made within. 'Ideology is unscientific?' To whoever wrote these questions: I recommend a lesson from your own book, pal; assumptions in proofs disqualify any 'proof' to be a proof at all.
cont.  we have clear example ,any humane mind  see the square three angle shape with the squares drawn around it will understand directly 
Protagoras theory and any man see a diagram for a circle with tow lines towered the center with a little explains will understand the way which used in history to measure the circle of the earth  by digging tow deep holes with known distance when the sun come in to the deep end of the well . there is no need to make any contact with the creeks or the Egypt people . on other hand we never heard that any man studied well the  creek history or the Egyptian history became convinced of the creek theology or the Egyptian theology.here the nature of the scientific truth distinguish from the Ideological truth .( to be cont.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.marwan Dauod (talk • contribs) 18:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: I have removed this sentence, on the basis of its being conclusory without explanation, unsourced, and partly POV...Kenosis 18:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Paradoxically, some forms of positivism cannot be used to validate themselves--most famously, logical positivism is considered self-defeating.  " ... 18:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems that that statement was referring to the self-negation of the verification principle of meaning. That principles states that propositions are meaningful as a function of their method of verification. However, this principle itself had no way of being verified, and thus was, by its own standards, meaningless. This famous principle of logical positivism, and the Vienna Circle, deafeated itself. Drifter 16:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence removed for further consideration by the editors

message: Doesn't anybody else find the combination "...historians, philosophers and ecofeminists" laughable? That sentence is also written in a highly POV way ("roundly condemn", "simplistic approach", "inappropriately applied"...). I could try to fix it, but what it really needs is not only reformulation but also sourcing. Mglg 00:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This is precisely where many..." 

message: Positivism is the primary article, sociological positivism is a branch of that philosophy. A sociologist did create this perspective within philosophy, however it is applied in a variety of different fields, such as geography; therefore, I feel that we should merge sociological positivism into this article, not the other way around. Should geographical positivism become a branch of sociological positivism in wikipedia? SCmurky 23:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Combining articles 

message: there has been no justification or discussion of the merge.  the merge has been removed.--Buridan 02:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: : Positivism is also depicted as "the view that all true knowledge is scientific," [Bullock & Trombley] and that all things are ultimately measurable.
Even science doesn't believe that (think quantum physics), so is this a case where positivism has diverged from science or simply a misstatement?
Polymath69 08:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed it does appear so, or rather that the results of scientific method don't verify the theory of positivism. How ironic, perhaps there's something wrong with scientific method. Supposed 07:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be entirely wrong, and if I am, please be kind--but at the top of the article, it says that "...such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method."  I was under the impression (through some work in biology) that the scientific method never affirms anything, but can only disprove a hypothesis.  Hence the use the of the world "theory" to describe things that we consider solid facts (gravity, evolution, etc).  I believed that a hypothesis was slowly elevated to a theory after many, many tests failed to disprove it.  Thus, the hypothesis/theory is not proven correct, but has so far not been proven incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrpendent (talk • contribs) 15:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I linked to this article directly from an article about the conflicting interpretations of quantum theory, specifically positivism v realism so don't assume that quantum theory as anti-positivist.Vendrov 08:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Positivism was conceived long before quantum physics. Although measurabilitas ad infinitum is a no more accepted concept, it might have existed there in the 19th century. So that might constitute a dysfunctionality in positivism. And more: positivism is kind of a "philosophy", while science is a culture with a set of accepted methods. Positivism is much more constructed like a religion, than a philosophy proper, since it uses metaphysics to forbid metaphysics, the analogies to mind control and thought tabus should be obvious to anyone proficient in logics, cf. calvinism and wahhabitism. Said: Rursus ☻ 13:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measurableness? 

message: what is all this [ibid] business about? Cheers Supposed 07:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "ibid", short for ibidem, means "the same reference as the previous one I cited" – in this case [Bullock & Trombley]. The notation is sometimes used in scholarly books and articles, particularly older ones, but it is now generally discouraged. I don't personally think it should be used in Wikipedia. mglg(talk) 01:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IBID

message: Under Other positivist thinkers, the article says, "Emile Hennequin … was a man who, 'exemplified the tension between the positivist drive to sypsteize literary criticism and the unfettered imagination inherent in literature'." What does "sypsteize" mean? I can't find it in the dictionary. MishaPan 16:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sypsteize?

message: Syncretize?  Systematize {or systemize}?
NantucketNoon 11:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sypsteize?! 

message: I have added a fact check to the statement about Marxism rejecting Positivism since it is diametrically opposite to my understanding of the various Marxist tendencies. Lycurgus 13:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probable Counterfactual re Marxism 

message: And in an article about the philosophy of science no less.  No wonder the world is going to hell in a handbasket.Vendrov 08:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another article with no mention of Karl Popper 

message: It fails WP:V and looks like original research. I propose that it's either sourced or removed. –Fatalis 09:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Philosophical issues" section 

message: Can't find any indication of complaint about NPOV above (although plenty of other complaints). Removing the weasel word/scary box. Lycurgus 07:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Carping 

message: I have deleted the addition copied below:
"It should be obvious however, that these considerations do not appear to obstruct the actual work of most natural scientists. If these problems are embraced honestly, it can sometimes be difficult for a social scientist to ascertain whether they have even answered the question they posed. Yet the natural scientist has no such difficultly satisfying all interested parties: The vaccine prevents the disease in 85% of individuals, or it does not; The motor functions correctly at altitude, or fails 50% of the time. As long as success remains this easy to gauge in the natural sciences, the epistemological problems of positivism will remain interesting, but largely irrelevant to their day-to-day work."
*# This section of the page is a discussion of "problems with the positivist belief system". The paragraph deleted reads like a criticism of the items above it, which it is not.
*# This paragraph begins "it should be obvious..." and reads like an expression of a personal point of view that the writer believes everyone will accept. This seems ot me to violate wikipedia's 'no original research' rule.
Anarchia 00:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition to 'Philosophical issues section deleted

message: The first paragraph is full of awkward constructions, like "the necessity of progress through scientific progress" and "leading thinkers of the social evolutionism thought."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimwilce (talk • contribs) 16:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylistic problems 

message: Is Wikipedia intended to Confuse?
I got here from the "Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum Theory", section "The meaning of the wave function", wherein I quote,
"The Copenhagen Interpretation denies that any wave function is anything more than an abstraction, or is at least non-committal about its being a discrete entity or a discernible component of some discrete entity.
There are some who say that there are objective variants of the Copenhagen Interpretation that allow for a "real" wave function, but it is questionable whether that view is really consistent with POSITIVISM (link emphasized) and/or with some of Bohr's statements. Niels Bohr emphasized that science is concerned with predictions of the outcomes of experiments, and that any additional propositions offered are not scientific but rather meta-physical. Bohr was heavily influenced by positivism. On the other hand, Bohr and Heisenberg were not in complete agreement, and held different views at different times. Heisenberg in particular was prompted to move towards realism.[3]"
I came to understand and evaluate the validity of a train of scientific thought regarding "Zero-Point Energy" before I or my correspondent died. I understand there exists no general guarantee I will understand any particular topic by reading about it.
If I accept a wave function as a wave function, then I can use the wave function as like. Does the wave function hinder or enhance my functioning by its existence? I do not know. Does it predict things others feel do not exist, or only that which is generally accepted? Why should I care, until it matters to me? But, views put existence to work, so now I am left with the question of trying to imagine a situation where "Zero-Point Energy" could work as described. And, Wikipedia refers me to an article that describes (quoted below) how humanity (thus man) must go thru a three-stage process to reach the Positivism view that allows me to deny that the wave function of Zero-Point Energy, in reality, exists. The three-stage process is: accept received "facts", then respect humanity's rights (also a received "fact"), then accept the idea that one can achieve anything based on one's individual free will and authority (while respecting humanity's rights) (another received "fact"). Thus, by my Positivistic development of acceptance (Is this contrary to the skeptical nature of scientific inquiry?) , I can disprove a scientific theory. Or, scientific proof only works for those who respect human life?
But, at the Risk of Screaming, I state the main premise of my contribution here, "I AM NOW MORE CONFUSED THAN WHEN I STARTED." Is this the intent of Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia intended to confuse?
At the least, the following passage calls for some restriction or qualifications to the sentence "There is no higher power governing the masses and the intrigue of any one person than the idea that one can achieve anything based on one's individual free will and authority." Why can this sentence be confusing? Let me count the ways.
This is one possible parsing (forgive me if you think there exists a msitake here - I admit, the longer the sentence, the greater the possibility I make an error of understanding):
(There) is (no (higher (power))) (governing ((the masses) and (the (intrigue (of (any (one (person))))) than (the (idea (that (one) (can achieve) anything (based on (one's individual ((free will) and authority)))))))
a) too many clauses -> Can these be restated in separate sentences? b) "anything" is undefined -> Supposing one has the authority to violate human rights (stage 2), can one's free will achieve this violation and still be Positivist? c) Sentence construction is negative ("no higher power") -> can this be made more positive (Positivist?) d) The ambiguous nature of the common English usage of the word "and" ("both X and Y" versus "either X or Y, possibly without completely evaluating one or the other"), calls for breaking this long rambling sentence into separate sentences, with more specifics and examples. e) "any", "anything"-> Is it possible to think clearly in such expansive generalities? f) "one", "person", "achieve" -> Do these need to be defined? g) In order to even think concretely about this sentence, the following undefined variables need to be evaluated (matched) to the reader's known interpretation:
1) powers, higher than, negated, that could possibly govern 2) masses (which permution of six billion, currently) 3) persons, (which, of six billion), capable of which intrigues, 4 and 5) one (twice) times (which, of six billion) 6) anything, which is achievable 7) the idea 8) based on 9) one's individual (Is this redundant? Does anyone have group free will?) 10) authority 11) and (and its ambiguous interpretations)
Since most people can only think about a maximum of two to seven different things at a time, this sentence cannot even be read without significant thought, if at all, for the preceding listed reasons, namely it is too ambiguous, redundant, or hard.
CAN IT BE CLARIFIED ENOUGH SO I CAN DETERMINE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BOHR AND HEISENBERG? [IN CAPITALS TO RESTATE MY GOAL, NOT TO SHOUT. (PARDON ME)]
Specifically, can the proposed content of this article be made relevant to our current shared existence? Can the historical develoment background be made understandable in a current events context? Can the opinions of the participants of the recent 2007-2008 presidential debates be characterized from a Positivist viewpoint? Is Positivism, as defined, too ambiguous to do so? Are the opinions, as stated, too ambiguous to do so? Does the Wikipedia Positivism explanation fail when brought to the specifics of defending the human rights of terrorists, at the expense of the safety and freedom of thought of the masses or any one person and their individual free will and authority?
In short, does this Wikipedia entry make sense to anybody outside of college philosophy majors?
Referenced Quote from this "Positivism" article: "The theological phase of man is based on whole-hearted belief in all things with reference to God. God, he says, had reigned supreme over human existence pre-Enlightenment. Humanity's place in society was governed by his association with the divine presences and with the church. The theological phase deals with humankind accepting the doctrines of the church (or place of worship) and not questioning the world. It dealt with the restrictions put in place by the religious organization at the time and the total acceptance of any “fact” placed forth for society to believe.[2]
Comte describes the metaphysical phase of humanity as the time since the Enlightenment, a time steeped in logical rationalism, to the time right after the French Revolution. This second phase states that the universal rights of humanity are most important. The central idea is that humanity is born with certain rights, that should not and cannot be taken away, which must be respected. With this in mind democracies and dictators rose and fell in attempt to maintain the innate rights of humanity.[3]
The final stage of the trilogy of Comte’s universal law is the scientific, or positive stage. The central idea of this phase is the idea that individual rights are more important than the rule of any one person. Comte stated the idea that humanity is able to govern itself is what makes this stage innately different from the rest. There is no higher power governing the masses and the intrigue of any one person than the idea that one can achieve anything based on one's individual free will and authority. The third principle is most important in the positive stage.[4]
These three phases are what Comte calls the universal rule – in relation to society and its development. Neither the second nor the third phase can be reached without the completion and understanding of the preceding stage. All stages must be completed in progress."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SalineBrain (talk • contribs) 20:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes Wikipedia is very confusing without anyone editor really having an intention in that direction. For the reader this usually means that there's nothing wrong with their brains, nor language proficiency. Instead it is the articles that are badly written. This article has C-quality, meaning that it contains something more than just a short explaining intro, but many improvements can be made to it. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I replaced the link from Copenhagen_interpretation#Meaning_of_the_wave_function to Positivism with a link to Logical positivism: the radical-empirical tenets of logical positivism essentially forbids reasoning about what is the underlying reason for the observed results. Positivism and logical positivism are often confused, understandably, since logical positivism is the only recent form of positivism. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Wikipedia intended to Confuse? 

message: Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Copenhagen_interpretation#Is_Wikipedia_intended_to_Confuse.3F  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SalineBrain (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addendum: Is Wikipedia intended to Confuse? 

message: This section needs to be clarified. The first italicised sentence and second italicised sentence are in contradiction. Does he believe in subjectivity or doesn't he?
Emile Hennequin was a Parisian publisher and writer, who wrote on theoretical and critical pieces. He "exemplified the tension between the positivist drive to systemize literary criticism and the unfettered imagination inherent in literature". He is one of the few thinkers that disagrees with the notion that subjectivity invalidates observation, judgments and predictions. Unlike many positivist thinkers before him he cannot agree that subjectivity does not play a role in science or any other form in society. His contribution to positivism is not one of science and its objectivity but rather the subjectivity of art and the way the artist, work, and audience view each other. Hennequin tried to analyze positivism strictly on the predictions, and the mechanical processes, but was perplexed due to the contradictions of the reactions of patrons to artwork that showed no scientific inclinations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.7.84 (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually on careful examination the two sentences are not in contradiction.  The first boils down to "He disagrees that subjectivity invalidates observation;" that is, "He believes that observation can be valid despite its subjectivity."  The second boils down to "He disagrees that subjectivity does not affect science and society;" that is, "He believes that subjectivity affects science and society."  In any case, I had to stare at the double negatives a long time before I was sure what these passages meant, but I think I've streamlined the writing a bit to clarify the position. W.stanovsky (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory section 

message: :logical positivism—a stricter and more logical version of Comte's basic thesis
was changed into:
:logical positivism—a stricter and more formal version of Comte's basic thesis
if defining positivism by metaphysics and then declaring metaphysics anathema, is logical then the Sun is shining and not shining. Positivism was very early heavily criticized for things like this, but it merchandized itself by giving its proponents advantages such as partaking in conferences. In computer science this might be called "marketdroidizing" shit to the customers. In science there is:
* logical positivism,
* other, non-logical positivism,
* critical rationalism,
* other, earlier rationalism,
* empiricism,
* etc.
There is no truth in "not positivist(X) implies enemy-of-science(X)". Said: Rursus (☻) 07:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed this

message: Isn't this just a sophisticated version of empiricism and pragmatism?  what's wrong with that? Now we can move on to something else.Tom Cod (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: How does it Differ from Empiricism and Pragmatism?

message: Within the section Other positivist thinkers there are several statements that seem really vague and unclear, at least to a non-expert in the field.  This seems to be compounded by style and grammar problems, but I can't quite parse out what they are meant to convey.  Could someone more familiar with the material improve on these?
At the end of the paragraph about Emile Hennequin: "Hennequin tried to analyze positivism strictly on the predictions, and the mechanical processes, but was perplexed due to the contradictions of the reactions of patrons to artwork that showed no scientific inclinations."
And the whole paragraph about Dmitri Pisarev:
Dimitri Pisarev was a Russian critic, who showed the greatest contradictions with his belief in positivism. His ideas focused around an imagination and style though he did not believe in romantic ideas because it reminded him of the tsarist oppressive government he lived in. His basic beliefs were "an extreme anti-aesthetic scientistic position". His efforts were focused on defining the relation between literature and the environment.
W.stanovsky (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed in section "Other positivist thinkers"? 

message: The account of sociological positivism focuses very heavily on Comte's 'law of three stages', his rather dialectical, idealistic, and (ironically) metaphysical account of history. This is important to mention, but really positivism relates to an epistemological approach, to methodologies and statistical techniques and other attempts at social empiricism. We need to know about the inner workings of how Comte felt sociology should be performed. Perhaps those sorts of ideas are better presented in the work of Durkheim, but still, there was certainly more substance to Comte's work than the article currently suggests! --Tomsega (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The account of sociological positivism must be refined 

message: I'm rather new to the subject here of Positivism, part of why I poked in to read the article.  I was wondering about the scare quotes used in the introduction, and how they may be used to affect a non-NPOV.  Seems similar to the use of a weasel word in used here.  The line I am addressing is the following:
Positivism has also been espoused by 'technocrats' who believe in the inevitability of social progress through science and technology.[4]
I don't have a particular viewpoint on this matter, with still forming my opinion of positivism, however this seems a bit dubious when relating to NPOV to me.
Perhaps better suited would be :
Positivism has also been espoused by bureaucrats who believe in the inevitability of social progress through science and technology.
or adding to that "...often called technocrats." with some citation.
Since I'm not more familiar with the subject of the article I did not want to make this change myself, just wanted to point out a possible problem so those more familiar could decide.  Der.Gray (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Positivism has no relation whatsoever to bureaucracy (expect in the sense it might be but one product of the rationalisation of Western culture as a whole, in a Weberian sense). Positivism, scientism, and technocracy are all intimately linked in terms of cold scientific thinking as ideology, or something comparable. I think the article is reasonable fair, albeit not brilliant. It's important to note that social and market research instigated by governments and businesses worldwide still adheres to the principle of sociological positivism, so it hasn't been 'done away with' in that sense, but in terms of logical positivism, philosophers such as Rorty or those in the continental tradition have gone a long way to scrubbing it out. I think more important is the issue below.. --Tomsega (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scare Quotes and Neutrality

message: The article generally makes it clear that positivism relates to specific sociologies, philosophies, and modes of thought, but in what sense does the initial one-sentence definition - "Positivism is a philosophy which holds that the only authentic knowledge is that which is based on actual sense experience" - distinguish positivism from empiricism? Does anyone know a better one-sentence definition than that? --Tomsega (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm googling for some sources that might be the basis for the uncited Principles section. This encyclopedic entry from changingminds.org approximately claims that positivism is a redevelopment of empiricism, extending it towards logics and mathematics (if I get it right). Thus an extension. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the intro should say something like that source, and like this one claiming that positivism developed from radical empirism by foremost Comte, who also implemented the anti-religious sentiment. The Catholic Encyclopedia is more nuanced and concentrates on the early development of Comte and immediate followers, claiming the formation of an orthodox group under Laffitte, and a science heuristic oriented direction of Emile Littré. The criticism section is of course massive, because religious people are usually realists. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The intro has since been changed to emphasise that it is a philosophy of science as well as an epistemology, which I think is fitting. Above all else Comte's positivism concerns a hierarchy of belief systems, each moving further away from mere "belief". I'd disagree that Comte implemented the anti-religious sentiment though... well, okay, he helped set the gears in motion toward modern secular societies like the American and British Humanist associations, but he actually disliked "atheism". As a functionalist sociologist concerned with social cohesion, he found atheism too scornful and rebellious. Durkheim, similarly, was an atheist who regarded religion as a good thing!--Tomsega (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "disagree ... anti-religious". Yes, I expressed it wrongly: he was indeed trying to erect a new religion to replace the old religions, "anti-religious" is then gravely misleading. I think he actually succeeded in erecting a religion, although that's not the conventional way to describe modern positivism/humanism (misnomer). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 19:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions: distinction between positivism and empiricism? 

message: I found the following site for the Principles section:
* http://changingminds.org/explanations/research/philosophies/positivism.htm
It claims the following principles' list:
# Naturalism
# Phenomenalism
# Nominalism
# Atomism
# Scientific laws
# Facts and values
The following link might contain a similar list, but it is over my competence to determine it:
* http://infomotions.com/etexts/archive/ia301332.us.archive.org/3/items/humannatureandmo00ingruoft/humannatureandmo00ingruoft_djvu.htm
The current list in the Principles section seems like a subset of the logical positivist list, which is a later development, and doesn't exactly orient positivism in the "philosophical geography".
So far. Those were the ones I found that dealt with positivism and its principles per se, not logical positivism, nor legal positivism. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good that the article contains a lot of information on the original positivism, even if not all these principles can be generalised across the board. As Comte was an obscure figure in the Anglo-American world, and because logical positivism was such a huge movement, a lot of textbooks written in English act as if positivism began around 1920, in England. The Stanford online Encyclopaedia article on Comte is really interesting in that respect. In hindsight he might have been totally wrong about just about everything, but he was very significant!--Tomsega (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'm reasoning that religions, political groupings and philosophies are to be classified taxonomically, according to a gut-feeling that most of those mind-sets contain a lot of unformulated presumptions, hold to be "obvious" of the adherents of those mind-sets. Even though Logical positivism (not exactly what this article is about) is sometimes set equal to Analytic philosophy (in my books, not found on Wikipedia!) the heritage is different, and therefore the fates of them are different, even though they for a while became very similar due to "convergent evolution", cf. baptism with anabaptism, cf. strasserism with stalinism. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 19:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A few sources found

message: One of the oddest (but valuable) link I've found so far: Orthodox Science: The Principles of Positivism. Includes a Bayesian model of positivism. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: I am no philosophy expert, but it seems odd to me that this article makes no mention of David Hume.  What do others think about that?
Fivetonsflax (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To what extent? Generally for the British empiricists it was hard science or social contracts and little inbetween. Continental philosophy tended to sit between the two, merging the scientific and the social, presenting complex ideological systems of thought, etc. On the one hand, British philosophy has in some sense been a shallower place. On the other, its exactly that kind of European scheming which lead to totalitarianism and fascism!!--Tomsega (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hume?

message: What's up with this stuff about assumptions below the first paragraph? doesn't look like it belongs there.
Joe  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.207.89 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Assumptions section?

message: The article repeatedly reminds us that logical positivism is dead, but it's not that simple. I'd like it to have a more nuanced view, as per http://epress.anu.edu.au/info_systems/mobile_devices/ch01s02.html. What do you think? 24.45.42.125 (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you have in mind, would the logical positivism article be better? I think Lakotos renders vivid the Hegelian panorama of contemporary metaphysics.—Machine Elf 1735 21:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The death of nuance 

message: From the intro: "Positivism is a philosophy of science based on the view that in the social as well as natural sciences, information derived from sensory experience, and logical and mathematical treatments of such data, are together the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge."
This is not the position of any sane person - talking with someone or reading something is not "information derived from sensory experience, and logical and math treatments of such data". The knowledge from a book is a report of someone else's sensory experience, as well as whatever spin they put on it. You just have to take their word that they did the experiment, did not manipulate the data, etc... I don't care if the source utters this exact sentence word for word---it is patent nonsense and implies that every positivist is paranoid and anti-social. I'll provisionally add 'and reports'. 173.239.78.54 (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification of edit to intro 

message: Modern positivism is due to Ernst Mach, and has no relation to Compte's positivism aside the name. This article is stupid. The original positivist (in the modern sense) is Mach, and Mach's circle was renamed the Vienna circle.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.20.73 (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compte's positivism is not modern positivism 

message: The introduction appears to me as if it contradictes itself.  Ijn summary it says:
1. knowledge is based on natural phenomena 
2. information derived from sensory experience is the source of knowledge
Combining these two I get:
 sensory experience is the source of "knowledge" based on natural phenomena.
which seems tautological but seemingly neither the meaning of 1. nor 2.
Could someone clarify or rewrite this? 
LookingGlass (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introducing confusion? 

message: Seems to me that among the other things with which to compare/contrast against, Emergence should be high on the list. Michael Tiemann (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emergence 

message: very inaccurate and incorrect definition of postivism  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C400:8C80:1030:7A87:8A92:613B (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor definition 

message: Hey-o. Found myself in a Wikipedia rabbit-hole again and I noticed that the "Philosophical Positivism" section is just...not encyclopedic content in any way. Here are just a few of the flaws in that section:
* It's literally just a block of text, making it hard to read.
* There are absolutely no citations.
* It's not written in an encyclopedic manner -- in my honest opinion, it looks more like an argumentative essay written by someone that hates the topic they're writing about.
* There's a bunch of grammatical errors, too.
* Not entirely sure if the info is even correct.
I dunno how to add templates, so I'm just gonna slap this here and hope someone gets to it, even if this page hasn't been updated in...what looks like four years.
1700 (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This section and another on Mach were just added by User:Amdcpu28. I'm going to revert Amcpu28's edits for the moment, but I don't necessarily oppose the addition of these sections; they just need to be rewritten in an encyclopedic style with proper citations.
SilverStar54 (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Philosophical Positivism" Section Needs to be Fixed 

message: Quote from the article: "Quantitative work is easier to justify, as data can be manipulated to answer any question." .. 
I'm not sure why the sentence - ... a variation of the popular saying "lies, damned lies, and statistics"  - has survived years of revision:  
Firstly: I think the intent is to say "... as data can be manipulated to give any answer", not 'answer any question' (such a criticism doesn't make sense as quantitative research is typically very narrow in its research questions) 
Secondly: it is kind of self-contradictory as it stands: if something can manipulated to give any answer, it should be less easy to justify?
Thirdly, it is not NPOV. Anyone with insight into the quantitative/qualitative debate knows that such criticism is relatively more often put forward against qualitative methods, as there are typically no strict protocols to follow and replicability in a strict sense is out of the question. This, of course, does not mean that qualitative research is more often manipulated, only that it it would be fair to say that this kind of criticism is more typical of qualitative methods.
I know, the sentence cites a source, which unfortunately is behind a pay wall, but if that is what the source article says, it is highly biased.
Abc~dawiki (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "quantitative work is easier to justify, as data can be manipulated to answer any question"