UNIT 2 LOGICAL POSITIVISM: BASIC IDEAS, IMPLICATIONS AND CRITIQUE
Contents
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The Goal of Logical Positivism
2.3 Logical Positivism – Clarifying Terms
2.4 Idea of Science
2.5 Scientific Knowledge
2.6 Area of Inquiry in Philosophy of Science
2.7 Meaning and Verification
2.8 The Primacy of Observation
2.9 Rationality of Science
2.10 Critical Evaluation of Logical Positivism
2.11 Let us Sum Up
2.12 Key Words
2.13 Further Readings and References
2.14 Answers to Check Your Progress
2.0 THE OBJECTIVES
Logical Positivism had been a prominent school of the philosophy of science. This lesson is
meant to introduce students to the philosophy of science of logical positivism. Its objectives are:
• To situate logical positivism in its historical setting.
• To discuss the meaning of the terms, viz., logical and positivism
• To familiarize oneself with the central philosophical and epistemological tenets of logical
positivism
• To examine critically the various claims of logical positivism
• To cultivate in students the habit of critical thinking leading to a coherent vision of
reality.
1
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Mechanical Philosophy of Nature was the dominant worldview in the 18th and 19th centuries
emerging from the Newtonian or classical physics. It looked at the cosmos as a huge machine, say, a
giant clock. In many significant ways Logical Positivism could be considered a reincarnation of the
Mechanical Philosophy of Nature. As Frederick Suppe points out, “mechanistic materialism was quite
dominant in Germany in the nineteenth century, especially in the first half.” Logical Positivism originated
in the German world in the first half of the twentieth century from the Vienna Circle of M. Schlick and
the Berlin Circle of Hans Reichenbach. “It arose as a convergence of three streams of
developments: The empiricism of Hume, Mill and Mach; the methodology of empirical science as
developed by Helmholtz, Mach, Poincare, Duhem, Boltzmann, and Einstein; and symbolic logic and
linguistic analysis, as developed by Frege, Whitehead, Russell, and Wittgenstein.” Logical positivism
could be described as “a philosophical movement risen in Austria and Germany in 1920s,
primarily concerned with the logical analysis of scientific knowledge, which affirmed that
statements about metaphysics, religion, and ethics are void of cognitive meaning and thus
nothing but expression of feelings or desires; only statements about mathematics, logic and
natural sciences have a definite meaning. Its members included Rudolf Carnap (1891-1970),
considered the leading figure of logical positivism, Herbert Feigl (1902-88), Philipp Frank
(1884-1966), Kurt Grelling (1886-1942), Hans Hahn (1879-1934), Carl Gustav Hempel (1905-
97), Victor Kraft (1880-1975), Otto Neurath (1882-1945), Hans Reichenbach (1891-1953),
Moritz Schlick (1882-1936), Friedrich Waismann (1896-1959).”i
Einstein's theory of relativity had its indirect impact on the origin of logical positivism as
the logical positivists explored the philosophical significance of the theory of relativity. Also the
developments in quantum mechanics and the related epistemological and philosophical issues
boosted the growth of logical positivism. The developments of formal and symbolic logic also
exerted influence on logical positivism. By 1930s logical positivism was a prominent
philosophical movement across Europe and USA.
2.2 THE GOAL OF LOGICAL POSITIVISM
2
Logical positivism is a particular approach to knowledge in general and to science and
philosophy in particular. Vienna circle was a group of scientists, mathematicians and
philosophers. They were reacting against the intrusion of mathematics in science. They believed
that metaphysics is harmful to science. They criticized the use of metaphysical categories like
Vital force (Henry Bergson) , Substantial Form (Aristotle), etc. The two-fold goals of the logical
positivists could be articulated as follows:
1. They wanted to demonstrate the meaninglessness of metaphysics in general and science
in particular.
2. They wanted to establish a firm foundation for science. They did not want metaphysics to
be its foundation. This approach of the logical positivists was in sharp contrast with the
method advocated by the Kantians.
2.3 LOGICAL POSITIVISM – CLARIFYING TERMS
Logical positivism is a combination of the two approaches upheld by positivism and
symbolic logic. Positivism is a particular school of knowledge which advocates that valid
knowledge must be based on sense knowledge. Any knowledge which is not based on senses is
meaningless. It could be noted here that positivism is the extreme form of empiricism as the
empiricists do not claim that knowledge not based on senses is invalid or meaningless, though
they too advocate that knowledge should begin with sense experience. According to A. F.
Chalmers, Logical Positivism is "an extreme form of empiricism according to which theories are not
only to be justified by an appeal to facts acquired through observations, but are considered to have
meaning only insofar as they can be so derived."
The recourse to ‘logical’ in logical positivism is on account of their emphasis on the use
of symbolic logic. Symbolic logic is developed by formulating logical principles in symbolic and
mathematical terms. For instance, if P stands for a statement, then in Px, x is a mother; In Qx x
is a woman, then Px Qx = if P, then Q. Px = Qx is a simple illustration of symbolic logic. This
follows certain mathematical rules. Therefore symbolic logic is called mathematical logic. They
advocated the use of symbolic logic in the analysis of science. Symbolic logic has the advantages
of clarity and exactness and anything in science should be translated in terms of symbolic logic.
If science is formulated in mathematical logic, then science is clear, distinct and exact. The
principal function of the philosophy of science is the logical analysis of science.
3
2.4 IDEA OF SCIENCE
Logical positivists had a very narrow perspective towards science, whereby they thought
of science as a set of laws, theories and principles. In tune with their focus on symbolic logic
they conceived science as having two aspects; viz.,T and C.
T = Theoretical aspect
C = Corresponding rules
Every theory must be put in the symbolic form of T and C. Corresponding rules are rules
which concretize the theory. It puts theory in contact with observable consequences.
Corresponding rules are the interpretative system. These rules specify also the reliable
experimental procedure.
For example, Boyle’s law concerning the behavior of gas states that when the volume
increases the pressure decreases. Gases are made up of molecules. These molecules move fast
and they collide with each other. When Boyle proposed these things, its assumptions were
merely theoretical. Nobody had observed molecules or collision between them. However
Increase of pressure or decrease of volume or vice versa can be observed. This observable part
belongs the ‘C’ part and the unobservable part belongs to the ‘T’ part. Science must be
constructed mostly out of ‘C.’
2.5 SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
Scientific knowledge can be had in two ways through empirical research and logical analysis.
Empirical research is done by conventional science whereas logical analysis is done by the
philosophy of science. A scientific statement has two parts, viz., Form and Content. For instance,
the Newtonian idea of the law of gravity states that all physical bodies in the universe attract
each other. It has a universal logical form which can be formulated mathematically. Therefore by
Form is meant the structure or the logical model which covers the form of scientific explanation,
law and theory. The content in this law refers to the force of attraction, nature of bodies, etc. A
philosopher of science should be busy with the form of scientific explanation than with the
content of the explanation. Content is the concern for conventional scientists. This is because
they believe that the scientific character resides in the form. Form makes a statement a scientific
4
statement. A particular phenomenon is explained by science when that is deduced from certain
given laws and existing conditions.
2.6 AREA OF INQUIRY IN PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Is a philosopher of science obliged to study every bit of science? For logical positivists, the
answer is, no. According to them, a scientific activity has two aspects:
1. The context of Discovery
2. The context of Justification
The context of discovery refers to all the personal, contextual and philosophical factors and
processes that are involved is a new discovery. The context of justification refers to all that go
into establishing the theory scientifically. The context of discovery is not the concern of
Philosophy of science. It should be left to historicists, psychologists, sociologists, and others.
The context of justification is the concern of the philosophy of science.
Their discard of the context of discovery conversely implied that the worldview of the
scientist was irrelevant as far as the scientific work was concerned. A worldview refers to a cluster of
factors like the cultural, social, religious, and personal aspects of the scientist. The educational
background, family upbringing, prejudices and preferences, etc., also become part of the worldview.
Logical positivists believed that these factors had no bearing on the science of the scientist. Every
scientist from any part of the world with any type of background would arrive at the same scientific
results as long as he/she proceeded [Link]
Check Your Progress 1
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit
1) What is the goal of Logical Positivism?
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
5
………………………………………………………………………………….
2) Write a short note on Scientific Knowledge.
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
2.7 MEANING AND VERIFICATION
Logical positivists advocated the verification theory of meaning. The verification
principle states that a contingent proposition is meaningful if and only there is an empirical
method for deciding whether it is true or false. For example, the statement that ‘light travels
along straight path’ can be experimentally verified and therefore a meaningful proposition.
Whereas, there is no empirical method to prove the proposition that ‘God exists.’ Therefore this
statement is false. It could be noted that logical positivists were atheists or agnostics in one way
or the other.
According to logical Positivism, inductivism is the right method of scientific inquiry and that
alone is capable of constituting authentic knowledge. It also believes that inductivism is an
effective means to formulate infallible scientific generalizations on the basis of factually
significant statements. “We say that a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if and
only if, he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express – that is if he knows
what observation would lead him under certain conditions to accept the proposition as being true
or reject its opposite as being false.” The factual significance of a statement is identified with
verifiability, and verifiability in turn is identified with observation. The statement that can never
be verified by observation is considered as insignificant and an insignificant statement is treated
as unauthentic. Logical positivism is generous enough to recognize two kinds of verification –
‘verification in practice’ where the actual verification is possible and ‘verification in principle’
where only a possibility of actual verification is envisaged.
Logical positivism makes a distinction between authentic and pseudo statements.
Consequently, it bifurcates the human claims-to–know into two irreconcilable systems – science
6
and non-sciences. It has no doubt about the infallibility of authentic claims and the fallibility of
psuedo claims. The inductivistic verifiability alone is the criterion to make such a bifurcation,
and by means of the verification principle it grants permission to the scientific hypothesis to
remain part of the authentic claims though a `conclusive verification’ of hypothesis is not
possible.
2.8 THE PRIMACY OF OBSERVATION
Logical Positivists made a sharp distinction between observation and theory, in other
words, between O-terms and T-terms; O-terms are not problematic, whereas T-terms are
confusing and misleading. Quantities pertaining to colour, length, warmth, etc., are examples of
O-terms. Electric fields, electrons, atoms, etc., are examples of T-terms. Theories must be
subsequent to observation. T-terms get their meaning and cognitive significance only through
their connection with O-terms. If a T-term can somehow be connected with O-term, it will have
legitimacy. “Sense observation was absolutely fundamental for LP (Logical Positivism). In a way
scientific knowledge originated and terminated in observation, since all valid knowledge should be
based on observational data and must be validated by observation. It made a sharp distinction between
observation and theory, observational terms and theoretical terms. The former were usually reliable
and non-problematic, whereas the latter problematic and messy. LP did not reject theoretical
terms but said that they had validity and meaning as long as and in so far as they were related to
observational terms. In fine, observation was the final court of appeal, as far as LP was
concerned.”
2.9 RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE
Logical Positivists looked at science as a privileged form of knowledge, a unique form of
knowledge. Aristotle had called scientific knowledge episteme which meant firm, immutable,
and certain knowledge. “It was different from doxa, which was only opinion, yielding only
probable knowledge. This also meant that science and scientists were a breed apart, away from
the ordinary run of things. In its extreme form Logical Positivism claimed that scientific
knowledge was completely rational; irrational or even non-rational elements had no place in
science. Scientific knowledge was unchanging since once something was established as science, it
would remain essentially immutable (some modifications by way of extending the domain of its
7
application, etc., were possible). Hence science gave eternal and universal truths. Scientific
knowledge was objective, uncontaminated by personal elements. The passions and prejudices
of the scientist exerted no influence on scientific knowledge.”
2.10 CRITICAL EVALUATION OF LOGICAL POSITIVISM
Several recent developments in the philosophy of science have challenged the claims of logical
Positivism and exposed their shallowness and untenability. Logical Positivism is no longer held as a
viable philosophy of science. The decline in the influence of logical positivism was natural and essential
on account of the bombastic and absolutist claims made by them.
The elitist view of science upheld by logical positivism was a sort of rational mythology. New
schools of the philosophy of science arose in an attempt to demythologize the extreme claims of
logical positivism. The schools of Historicism (also called Social Constructivism) and Historical
Realism (Critical Realism) have struck a major blow to logical positivism.
Let us critically examine the various claims of logical positivism:
1. Negation of Metaphysics: The metaphysical antagonism of logical positivism poses a
fundamental question. Should science use metaphysics? Logical positivists' very denial of
metaphysics implies metaphysics. The illusory faith of the logical positivists in the
infallibility of scientific claims resides in the hope that every fact could be explained in
terms of theories based solely on observation. A scientific law is universal and has its basis
in observation. But, is its universality observable? If not, how can logical positivists justify
their acceptance of these laws? Again, what is the validity of the fundamental methods of
science like induction and inference? Logical positivists' denial of metaphysics is finally a
metaphysics of scientific megalomania. Alan Wallace's observation has an explicit message
to them. "A disinterest in metaphysics may result not in abstention from such concerns, but
in unconscious, unintelligent adoption of a particular form of metaphysics."iii Denial of
metaphysics and its necessary prelude of observation as the ultimate criterion of truth seem
to be philosophically a very minimalist approach to Reality.
2. Distinction between Discovery and Justification: Their distinction between the context
of discovery and the context of justification betray a very naïve and parochial vision of
8
science. The process of discovery or the moment of discovery is cherished as one of the
most exciting aspects of the scientific enterprise. The irrational imaginative leap taken by
Max Planck in the discovery of the quantum hypothesis, or Einstein’s personal conviction
of the inherent harmony of the cosmos which led him to the formulation of the relativity
theory, etc., are classical examples of the significance of the context of discovery.
Delinking justification from context is a mere idealization of science.
3. Absolutization of Mathematics: They over-emphasized the importance of mathematics
in science. There is no perfect or ultimate axiomatisation or mathematization possible in
science. There are several phenomena in contemporary science which cannot be
adequately formulated mathematically. The quantum paradoxes like regeneration,
mechanincal stability, wave-particle duality, probability, uncertainty, etc., encountered in
the subatomic world are examples to it. The anti-metaphysics attitude of the logical
positivists forced them to attribute natural laws to the "software" of the universe. It reduces
reality to a mere process of computation. The classical physicists' radical conviction of
translating reality into mathematizable quantities was a scientific practice based on this
view. To this assumption, Einstein has given a severe jolt: "As far as the laws of
mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer
to reality."iv Eventually logical positivists themselves had realized that only a very few
theories could be mathamatized completely. So they had partly given up the idea of
mathematizing the whole scientific theories. Law reductionism in some ways seems to be
scientifically presumptuous because it would mean, "such elementary laws are more
intelligent than we are ourselves."v Ultimately, this tendency to reduce everything to mere
laws is the projection of an extreme faith in the omnipotence of those laws without daring to
look at the power and mystery behind them.
4. Meaning Invariance: As for the logical positivists, the meaning of scientific theories
does not change. They claim that even in the case of the transition from the geocentric
worldview to the heliocentric worldview there was only a minor change. There is no
radical change in science. Logical positivists were very much in the line of Aristotle.
New findings may be added, but no radical change. But this is not the case in science.
9
Scientific theories are always changing and evolving. The concepts, meaning, theories
and explanation of science are often radically replaced.
5. The Distinction between O-terms and T-terms: Logical Positivists made a sharp
distinction between Observational terms and Theoretical terms. But no absolute
distinction is possible between these two terms. As science develops more and more,
many T-terms become O-terms. The very concept of absolutely independent and
objective observation is questionable in several aspects of the present-day science. Today
many scientists and philosophers of science say that most observations are theory laden.
For example, our observational statement that ‘sun rises in East’ is still governed by the
geo-centric worldview. On the basis of the uncertainty principle in quantum physics,
physicists have argued that "microrealism"vi is an illusion in the quantum world. In the
wider sense, the collapse of microrealism implies that in the ultimate analysis the world is
"non-separate" from us. In quantum theory the measuring device plays an important role in
our picture of Reality. Associating the collapse of the wave function with the observer's
consciousness, physicist John Wheeler and colleagues have said that it is consciousness that
creates Reality. In Wheeler's words: “Nothing is more important about the quantum
principle than this, that it destroys the concept of the world as ‘sitting out there,’ with the
observer safely separated from it by a 20-centimetre slab of plate glass.... To describe what
has happened, one has to cross out that old word ‘observer’ and put in its place the new
word ‘participator.’ In some strange sense, the universe is a participatory universe.”
6. Verification Theory of Meaning: As for logical positivists, verifiability (empirical)
becomes the criterion for meaningfulness. According to logical positivism, inductivism
is the right method of scientific inquiry and that alone is capable of constituting authentic
knowledge. It also believes that inductivism is an effective means to formulate infallible
scientific generalizations on the basis of factually significant statements. But this should
be noted that the very verification theory itself cannot be subjected to the verification
method. Thus in the formulation itself, this principle is self-defeating. It could also be
noted that the very inductive method of science goes contrary to the claims of logical
positivism. For instance, to treat water as H2O is a universal statement. In every kind of
10
water we find the combination and make the absolute statement that water is H2O. Can it
be valid for all time and space? As a logical positivist one is supposed to go only by
observation and verification and one has not experimented with every water molecule to
conclude that water is H2O. Given their principles, one’s conclusion is not authorized by
the premises. The logical positivists’ model of the philosophy of science unambiguously
propagates both methodologism and methodological monism.
7. Karl Poppers’ Critique: Karl Popper launched a massive assault on the verification
method of the logical positivists. Popper is considered to be the bridge-builder between
logical positivism and historicism. According to him the greatest problem in philosophy is
the problem of the growth knowledge and the best way to know the growth of knowledge is
to know the growth of the scientific knowledge. Instead of verifiability, he advocated
falsifiability as the criterion of meaning in science. Scientific knowledge is to be assessed in
terms of Falsification. The notion of falsification is his unique contribution to the
philosophy of science. History of science shows that science is a series of conjectures and
refutations. A scientist proposes a hypothesis. Instead of trying to establish it, he tries to
refute it. If the hypothesis is refuted, it should be given up. If the hypothesis is refusing to be
refuted, it is corroborated and becomes hypothesis two and subsequent hypotheses are
added. One can always find positive instances in everything that one brings out in each
subsequent hypothesis. This technique, Popper calls the Falsification. The criterion of
demarcation between science and non-science is the falsifiability. A scientific statement is a
statement that can be subjected to the method of falsification. He stresses the role of
observation and at the same time doesn't make a sharp distinction between theory and
observation.
8. Historicist Criticism: Historicism arose mainly as a reaction against logical positivism. Its
main aim was to demythologize the logical positivist understanding of science. Historicists
were of the opinion that there are non-rational elements also in science as opposed to the
logical positivists' view. Historicists emphasized the history of science. They studied about
what went on in the past and what is going on in the present. The historicists looked at
science as it is, whereas the logical positivists looked at science as it should be. Historicists
11
showed that there are also irrational elements in science. Science is a mixture of rational and
irrational elements. There are also subjective elements in science. Historicists also
emphasized the concept of Weltanschauung. Weltanschauung or worldview is a collection
of factors like background, training, passions, bias, prejudices, etc., of the scientist. The
worldview of the scientist plays a crucial role in science. The worldview colors and controls
the world of the scientist. Philosophy of science is meant to identify this worldview. The
unique claim to truth by science of the logical positivists is proved to be mythical. Science is
just one among many other disciplines.
2.11 LET US SUM UP
• In many significant ways Logical Positivism could be considered a reincarnation of the
Mechanical Philosophy of Nature.
• Logical Positivism wanted to demonstrate the meaninglessness of metaphysics in general
and in science in particular.
• Logical positivism is a combination of the two approaches upheld by positivism and
symbolic logic.
• For logical positivists, the context of discovery is not the concern of Philosophy of
science. The context of justification is the concern of the philosophy of science.
• A philosopher of science should be busy with the form of scientific explanation than the
content of the explanation.
• The verification principle states that a contingent proposition is meaningful if and only
there is an empirical method for deciding whether it is true or false.
• Logical Positivists made a sharp distinction between observational terms and theoretical
terms.
• The various claims of logical positivism are loaded with serious philosophical problems
and have lost their relevance in the contemporary scientific and philosophical context.
Check Your Progress II
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer
12
b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit
1) What do you understand by rationality of science?
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
2) Write a short note on Verification Theory of Meaning.
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
2.12 KEY-WORDS
Vienna Circle: The Vienna Circle was a group of philosophers who gathered around Moritz
Schlick when he was called to the Vienna University in 1922, organized in a philosophical
association, of which Schlick was Chairman. Among its members were Gustav Bergmann,
Rudolf Carnap, Herbert Feigl, Philipp Frank, Kurt Gödel, Hans Hahn, Tscha Hung, Victor Kraft,
Karl Menger, Richard von Mises, Marcel Natkin, Otto Neurath, Olga Hahn-Neurath, Theodor
Radakovic, Rose Rand and Friedrich Waismann. With the exception of Gödel, members of the
Vienna Circle had a common attitude towards philosophy, characterized by two main beliefs:
first, experience is the only source of knowledge; second, logical analysis performed with the
help of symbolic logic is the preferred method for solving philosophical problems.
Quantum Physics: Quantum physics is a branch of science that deals with discrete, indivisible
units of energy called quanta as described by the Quantum Theory. There are five main ideas
represented in Quantum Theory: 1. Energy is not continuous, but comes in small but discrete
units. 2. The elementary particles behave both like particles and like waves. 3. The movement of
these particles is inherently random. 4. It is physically impossible to know both the position and
13
the momentum of a particle at the same time. The more precisely one is known, the less precise
the measurement of the other is. 5. The atomic world is nothing like the world we live in.
2.13 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES
Barone, Francesco. Il neopositivismo logico. Bari: Laterza, 1977.
Beckwith, Burnham Putnam. Religion, Philosophy, and Science; an Introduction to Logical
Positivism. New York: Philosophical Library, 1957.
Carnap, Rudolf. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. New York: Basic Books,
1974.
Friedman, Michael. Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
University Press, 1999.
Nagel, Ernest. The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961.
Reichenbach, Hans. Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press, 1944.
Reichenbach, Hans. The Philosophy of Space and Time. New York: Dover Publications,
1958.
2.14 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Answers to Check Your Progress I
1. Logical positivism is a particular approach to knowledge in general and to science and
philosophy in particular. Vienna circle was a group of scientists, mathematicians and
philosophers. They were reacting against the intrusion of mathematics in science. They believed
that metaphysics is harmful to science. They criticized the use of metaphysical categories like
Vital force (Henry Bergson) , Substantial Form (Aristotle), etc. The two-fold goals of the logical
positivists could be articulated as follows: They wanted to demonstrate the meaninglessness of
metaphysics in general and science in [Link] wanted to establish a firm foundation for
14
science. They did not want metaphysics to be its foundation. This approach of the logical
positivists was in sharp contrast with the method advocated by the Kantians.
2. Scientific knowledge can be had in two ways through empirical research and logical analysis.
Empirical research is done by conventional science whereas logical analysis is done by the
philosophy of science. A scientific statement has two parts, viz., Form and Content. For instance,
the Newtonian idea of the law of gravity states that all physical bodies in the universe attract
each other. It has a universal logical form which can be formulated mathematically. Therefore by
Form is meant the structure or the logical model which covers the form of scientific explanation,
law and theory. The content in this law refers to the force of attraction, nature of bodies, etc. A
philosopher of science should be busy with the form of scientific explanation than with the
content of the explanation. Content is the concern for conventional scientists. This is because
they believe that the scientific character resides in the form. Form makes a statement a scientific
statement. A particular phenomenon is explained by science when that is deduced from certain
given laws and existing conditions.
Answers to Check Your Progress II
1. Logical Positivists looked at science as a privileged form of knowledge, a unique form of
knowledge. Aristotle had called scientific knowledge episteme which meant firm, immutable,
and certain knowledge. “It was different from doxa, which was only opinion, yielding only
probable knowledge. This also meant that science and scientists were a breed apart, away from
the ordinary run of things. In its extreme form Logical Positivism claimed that scientific
knowledge was completely rational; irrational or even non-rational elements had no place in
science. Scientific knowledge was unchanging since once something was established as science, it
would remain essentially immutable (some modifications by way of extending the domain of its
application, etc., were possible). Hence science gave eternal and universal truths. Scientific
knowledge was objective, uncontaminated by personal elements. The passions and prejudices
of the scientist exerted no influence on scientific knowledge.”
15
2. As for logical positivists, verifiability (empirical) becomes the criterion for meaningfulness.
According to logical positivism, inductivism is the right method of scientific inquiry and that
alone is capable of constituting authentic knowledge. It also believes that inductivism is an
effective means to formulate infallible scientific generalizations on the basis of factually
significant statements. But this should be noted that the very verification theory itself cannot be
subjected to the verification method. Thus in the formulation itself, this principle is self-
defeating. It could also be noted that the very inductive method of science goes contrary to the
claims of logical positivism. For instance, to treat water as H2O is a universal statement. In every
kind of water we find the combination and make the absolute statement that water is H2O. Can it
be valid for all time and space? As a logical positivist one is supposed to go only by observation
and verification and one has not experimented with every water molecule to conclude that water
is H2O. Given their principles, one’s conclusion is not authorized by the premises. The logical
positivists’ model of the philosophy of science unambiguously propagates both methodologism
and methodological monism.
16
