I haven't dunked on the [[disproof]] of logical positivism in a while, so it's time to do it again.
During my research for this post, I came across the claim that language is communal and requires coordination. This Satanist has clearly never encountered math. Let x=3. Let x=5.
As long as you put the [let {word} have {meaning}] line in, you can have things mean whatever you want.
Let [dojo] refer to curtains. Now I will close the dojo. Oh, the dojo are already closed, I shall open a half. "But that's work!" whines the incompetent reader. Democratic Man can't into discipline and need not apply, yes. That's true.
Indeed, when engaging in the art formerly known as philosophy, it is necessary to redefine words. Natural meanings aren't nearly good enough to get anything done. In spade words, natural languages are amateur languages, unsuitable for professionals.
Admittedly it would likely be better to coin brand new words rather than attempting to precisely file and polish ye olde words. Perhaps philosophy fell because they didn't do this. Or perhaps revenge is sour - they didn't do this because philosophers were losers to start with, always doomed to fall. This was merely a warning sign.
I'ma keep not doing it, tho.
P.S. Modern defences of positivism seem to be, "They weren't saying what you disproved."
Okay, first, yeah of course they were. Don't be more autistic than me. Second, if any of them weren't saying it, they should have been.
Unverifiable statements are in fact meaningless. This is because the previous statement is a tautology. Orange statements are orange. Interactive statements are interactive. Supervenience statements are supervenient. Unravelling statements are unravelling.
The meaning of a statement is what you use to verify it. In this case, meaning is merely prediction. A meaningful statement has some relevance to the world.
We also have to deal with the false beliefs of empiricists and their opponents. The distinction between empirical and non-empirical is meaningless. The normal definition of [metaphysics] is an empty set. A soul is a kind of body. Less biological, maybe, but a body all the same. Descartes' mindstuff is still a substance. Logical experiments aren't unempirical, and I will perform one in a bit.
For a statement to be unverifiable, it has to have no relevance to anything. In other words, to be in fact saying nothing at all. There is no claim there.
If you're making an unverifiable statement about god, you're actually making no statement at all. It's a trick of smoke and mirrors. It works when the listener hears something other than what you in fact said - some verifiable claim. Usually a motte and bailey gambit. E.g. when christians claim god is unknowable and ineffable, what you're supposed to hear is that when the priest tells you god wants you to do something, you're not allowed to dispute the claim. Also, not actually unverifiable.
"God is good." Okay, what do you mean by [good]? What's the definition here?
If there is no decision affected by believing or discrediting this statement, then it is meaningless. A statement stating nothing. If it affects no decisions, then it is also unverifiable. No decision will have a surprising consequence for doubting it, which means it can neither be confirmed nor denied.
Generally it's not meaningless though. It means you should worship god, usually. Then worship will have some alleged consequences. We will have a set of predictions to confirm or deny.
Logical experiment: imagine a verifiable but meaningless statement. It would have to be a statement with a downstream test, except it has no downstream tests. Otherwise the result of that test would be a meaning - perhaps a very minor meaning. [Coloured dairy products are filiboogum.] Let filiboogum mean disliked by a cat owned by a certain pre-socratic Egyptian, during the hours of 3 and 12 am six weeks and three days after a solar eclipse. Likewise, any meaningful but unverifiable statement is a contradiction in terms.
Whoopsie doodle. Just tested the supposedly untestable statement. Used something empirical that's allegedly anti-empirical.
Namelessism adherents hate LP because it highlights truly unverifiable statements. The ur-example being, "I'm not lying to you." Errr...yes, that's exactly what a liar would say. The evidence relevant to the statement is controlled by exactly the entity whose trustiness is under challenge.
Statements about the food preferences of ancient cats, who probably never even encountered dairy with food colouring, are likewise unverifiable. The evidence is either locked away or has been destroyed. In every mortal sense, it is neither true nor false. It is by now, and ever always will be, impossible for mortals to distinguish a world where coloured dairy is filiboogum, and one where it isn't. A meaningless statement.
Satanists regularly rely on statements of inaccessible internal states, which, epistemically speaking, are neither true nor false as far as everyone else is concerned. This is the true reason logical positivism became unpopular. It's politically incorrect. Suppresses supply of lies...and lies are in desperate demand.
Again: one kind of statement where it bodily doesn't matter if it's true or not. Another where the offered evidence is controlled by the author of the statement such that the world looks exactly the same whether it's true or not. Either no evidence can exist, or they're trying to focus you on something that isn't evidence.
It gets worse. The statement that some statements are unverifiable is equivalent to the statement that some statements cannot be challenged.
"Some things can't be questioned. If they're true, you just have to believe them."
Anti-positivism is the true self-contradictory ideology. If some statements are unchallengeable, then, great: I take [all statements are unchallengeable] as my unverifiable statement. Sogol goes kaboom when exposed to logic.
No comments:
Post a Comment