A. J. Ayer on Logical Positivism and Its Legacy (1976)
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 11. 2015
- In this program with world-renowned author and professor Bryan Magee, A. J. Ayer, who played a major role in introducing logical positivism to England, explains the movement, its purpose, and its effect on current philosophical trends. Ayer also discusses its founders-members of the Vienna Circle of the 1920s-who based their theories on logic and science.
This gives me heightened respect for Ayer! How many prominent intellectuals are willing to confront, examine their legacy and prior beliefs with such honesty?
Bryan Magee is remarkable in that he doesn't try and argue with the people in the interview. I say this because in his writings, Magee can't stand logical positivism!
Its a very long story lol. Magee's book on Schopenhauer is excellent and the chapter on Kant is a phenomenal piece of philosophical writing.
Would you read Magee as a sort of Neo-Kantian? That's how I took him. You could then say he'd reject logical positivistic attitudes in the same way neokantian thinkers generally might.
But Ayer himself eventually figured out that LP is just false, he explains it in this very video. They are discussing the legacy of a movement that had come and gone, a thing of the past so no need for trying to argue.
I think this is largely due to the fact that the study of philosophy implies studying many positions with which you at most, only partly agree with. Also, as Emperi dou Souleu pointed out, he must've known that Ayer didn't held the movement to be true at that point.
I think it's being called a gentleman. ;)
Mr. Ayer is intellectually honest philosopher ....I admire you sir
Sir Freddie
Two delightful men in conversation. The passionate interest in the subject of logical positivism was elevated by the charm and history of that particular post war period. What was of great interest was the opening account by Bryan Magee of the connection of modern art with the actual subject in question. That mysterious covenant of simultaneous radical events exploding on the European scene.
Fabulous! A must watch for history of modern philosophy!
Ayer comes across as an incredibly honest mind in presenting Logical Positivism, and then explaining why it was false.
Some eye-opening bits for me are when he talks of the huge impact that LP had on the way modern educated people talk and think as it was eagerly welcomed and propagated by scientists basically because it flatters their ego so well (if LP were true, scientists would be the most important people in the world); and when he explains that the initial appeal of LP was that it was a revolt against Victorian authority and puritanism, "a breeze of fresh air".
I feel that he left out the main flaw in LP though, namely that the statement "the only meaningful statements are a. those of formal logic and b. those empirically verifiable" is itself neither a statement of formal logic nor empirically verifiable, but merely an epistemological position. Like other philosophical positions, it may be defended by argument but cannot be empirically tested. That means that if this statement is true, then it is itself meaningless! This logical contradiction on which LP is built has not really been resolved as far as I understand - this is the epistemological school that branded the whole field of epistemology meaningless and took itself down with it.
I also wish Ayer had gone into more details on the issue that it is not possible to empirically prove even the existence of minds other than one's own, and on how he views metaphysics now. I agree with him that the focus on language and the demand for clarity is still a beneficial legacy we got from LP. So interesting!
"if LP were true, scientists would be the most important people in the world" If you consider science in it's broadest sense, including it's practical applications, then I reckon you can make a case for this regardless of whether logical positivism has any merit.
Ayer seems to have thought that he had an answer to that objection which he outlined in his 1973 book, The Central Questions of Philosophy He suggested that the verification principle of meaning could be thought of as a stipulative definition.
There, Ayer asks:
"But then why should anyone follow the prescription if its
implications were not to his taste? We have, in fact, seen that the verification principle is defective on other grounds, but the same question arises with respect even to the much weaker proposal that I am substituting for it. Why should it be required of a metaphysical theory that it have some explanatory value ? To this I can reply only by asking what interest could the theory have otherwise. If it does not aspire to truth, we need not worry. Let it be said that it is meaningful: the word ‘meaning' is used very variously and there may be people to whom the theory is significant in some way or other. But if the theory does aspire to truth, there should be some way of determining whether it attains it."
So Ayer doesn't seem to have thought that objection (which people had been lodging against it from the beginning) was decisive. But he came to think that the more technical objections which he mentioned in the interview were.
Rationality vs wisdom
WOW, just WOW. Ayer was sublime
Im allergic to people who say 'just wow'. It sounds ridiculous
Miguel Reyes
If the picture on your channel is a picture of you, then so are you
Ayer was not. C.S. Lewis made mincemeat out of him in the 40's.
@@skiddwister9143 can you elaborate?
34:05 is an amazing moment. May we all be so blessed to be able to laugh at ourselves
the last few minutes were brilliant
thanks for sharing!
A very thorough and fascinating discussion!
Brilliant! thanks for posting
As someone whom has a special interest in epistemology, this is one of the best episodes.
Ayer was a fine teacher, very much in thrall to the work of Bertrand Russell. Both regarded Wittgenstein Mk1 (of the Tractatus) as brilliant, whereas Wittgenstein Mk 2 (of the Investigations) as less impressive.The jury was out for some time but, by and large, the Investigations has been given the nod.
The main criticism of Popper is that his principle of falsification, as opposed to verification, is actually third rather than second order. Science does initially set out to discover or know, falsification coming later.
Magee was a Popper supporter. However his work on Schopenhaur was magnificent, a real tour de force.
Superb upload - I saw the original series.
Gottlob Frege 1848-1925, Friedrich Albert Moritz Schlick 1882-1936, Otto Neurath 1882-1946, Ernst Mach 1836-1916, Rudolf Carnap 1891-1970, Albert Einstein 1879-1955, Herbert Feigl 1902-1988, A. J. Ayer 1910-1989, Bryan Magee 1930-
Edmund Husserl 1859-1938
Willard Van Orman Quine 1908-2000
I sleep well listening to this man
I only watch these programs for Bryan Magee's shirts, suits, and ties.
Loved this. Thank you.
What a nice and honest man was Ayer.
Great Dialog , Ayer has much appeal, Brian is good too
Ayer is a charming and vibrant chap. Honestly, Quine is like a corpse in comparison. You may ask ‘what does personality have to do with philosophy?’. Well it isn’t everything, but I do regard it as important. I like to imagine what it would be like to meet them in person. This helps me to approach their work
Logical positivism refutes itself.
Does anyone know of any accessible material from Ayer?
“- What were the shortcomings of the movement? - I suppose most of the defect is that it was false!” If you sincerely chase for truth in life, you do not hesitate to call your lifelong endeavor false when it does not seem right. Respectful.
Logical Positivism doesn't deny the possibility of metaphysical statements. It only holds them to be nonsensical in that they cannot be empirically verified. While the verifiability principle itself suffers from the drawback of making truth somehow subjective, for instance a white conch shell may appear to be yellow owing the presence of bile in the sense organ.
"The transcendental argument for the existence of God is the argument that attempts to prove God’s existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose the theistic worldview and that God’s transcendent character is the source of logic and morals. The transcendental argument for the existence of God argues that without the existence of God it is impossible to prove anything because, in the atheistic world, you cannot justify or account for universal laws.
Deductive reason presupposes the laws of logic. But why do the laws of logic hold? For the Christian and other theists, there is a transcendent standard for reasoning. As the laws of logic are reduced to being materialistic entities, they cease to possess their law-like character. But the laws of logic are not comprised of matter; they apply universally and at all times. The laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature and are necessary for deductive reasoning. The invariability, sovereignty, transcendence, and immateriality of God are the foundation for the laws of logic. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.
The atheist might respond, “Well, I can use the laws of logic, and I am an atheist.” But this argument is illogical. Logical reasoning requires the existence of a transcendent and immaterial God, not a profession of belief in Him. The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview his reasoning cannot rationally be accounted for.
If the laws of logic are merely manmade contentions, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic. In that case, the laws of logic would not be universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if the laws of logic were conventional, because the two parties could simply adopt different laws of logic. Each would be correct according to his own arbitrary standard.
If the atheist argues that the laws of logic are simply the product of electro-chemical impulses in the brain, then the laws of logic cannot be regarded as universal. What happens inside your brain cannot be regarded as a law, for it does not necessarily correspond to what happens in another person’s brain. In other words, we could not argue that logical contradictions cannot occur in a distant galaxy, distinct from conscious observers.
One common response is, “We can use the laws of logic because they have been observed to work.” However, this is to miss the point. All agree that the laws of logic work, but they work because they are true. The real issue is, how can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? Why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? Moreover, the appeal to the past to make such deductions concerning the way matter will behave in the future-from the materialistic point of view-is circular. Indeed, in the past, matter has conformed to uniformity. But how can one know that uniformity will persist in the future unless one has already assumed that the future reflects the past (i.e., uniformity)? To use one’s past experience as a premise upon which to build one’s expectations for the future is to presuppose uniformity and logic. Thus, when the atheist claims to believe that there will be uniformity in the future since there has been uniformity in the past, he is trying to justify uniformity by presupposing uniformity, which is to argue in a circle.
To conclude, the transcendental argument for the existence of God argues that atheism is self-refuting because the atheist must presuppose the opposite of what he is attempting to prove in order to prove anything. It argues that rationality and logic make sense only within a theistic framework. Atheists have access to the laws of logic, but they have no foundation upon which to base their deductive reason within their own paradigm.
"
Que personaje el Ayer
it had a [inaudible] = "success scandal" at 31:22
The [INAUDIBLE] at around 10:21 is "talking of."
I just updated the subtitle according to your suggestions.
Awesome.
A History of Philosophy | 79 Ethics Since Logical Positivism
wheatoncollege - I've found these lectures to be very good by Arthur Holmes
@Fuck You I'm a Jelly Bean It's not the best method for assessing the understanding of your students, I'll grant you that.
Yes.
The [INAUDIBLE] at around 16:56 is "in Language, Truth, and" and the next word "logic" should be capitalized.
Thanks for your contributions! much appreciated.
You're welcome!
[INAUDIBLE]@ 34:57 = 'sense data'
Thanks! just updated the caption.
Alfred Jules Ayer was a 💎
Fantastic discussion. I am just wondering now what degree of impact logical positivism has had on the current scientific mindset. I find scientists to be extremely hard-nosed and very exclusionary or binary in their thinking. I'm wondering if the LP indoctrination has left a big imprint on science. Is that why we have this dogmatic trend?
It is the other way around. The scientific method is the dogma. It is this dogma that inspires schools of thought like Logical Positivism.
if the raven is out side and no light no moon or street lights is the raven black or invisible?
Can someone give me a summary on what is Ayer's main point regarding logical positivism
?
me too
As in what is logical Positivism? It's the view that there are only two forms of knowledge, knowledge derived from logic e.g 1+1=2, a bachelor is an unmarried man, a cat is a cat and knowledge derived from empirical/scientific verification e.g the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the earth orbits the sun etc....
Any knowledge that does not fall into those two categories is not knowledge but really just nonsense (according to positivist)
Magee, still alive in 217.
AD?
Yes, he was. But he passed away in 2019.
Bryan is easily the best narrator of all time. I dare say, even better than David Attenborough.
34:03
The "show me the money (without any show)" philosophy
Ayer must have read Carnap's autobiography. There he acknowledges that they were a group interested in politics.
the tobacco he smokes comes from a garden in Greece that only a few people have access to
I would say that we can never escape the normative (subjective valuation) despite the positive (objective valuation). We can come closer to any given (factual) truth through LP, but LP can never tell us what is moral, since morality is subjective. Science has been used in such heinous ways (Nazi experiments, bomb-making, consumer marketing (Freud-Bernays)--science has become a function of the military industrial complex. Therefore, we cannot turn to LP to tell us how (in what situations, to what ends) to use science, but solely how to conduct its methodology. Religion has also been used in heinous ways, in addition to being irrational in and of itself. A real double-bind here. Now, if we remove the politics (corporate-crony-politics) from both science and religion (Quakers have attempted this to some degree of success), we can get somewhere. Science, embedded in a non-superstitious, non-religious reverence for nature, life, creative genius, holistic healthfulness, etc. is to me the answer. I'm not a socialist, but I envision a new model of "franchising worker-cooperative entrepreneurship." DEcentralized, grass roots, artisanal, sustainable...with a franchising mechanism to structure it towards maximal success.
How do you know that a knife will cut through skin or through cloth? By stabbbing something with it.
This is empirical evidence, and the fact that technological innovations can harm us in ways that become known to scientists over the years does not at all invalidate scientific knowledge.
Scientific knowledge is what gives inventors a framework upon which to build machines and contraptions, and it also tells us that those inventions can cause irreversible damage to our health and our environment.
Scientific evidence cannot be used by itself to establish any kind of ethical judgements. Instead, moral beliefs will simply determine a conclusion based upon how facts align with applicable rules or moral principles for each situation, but in order to break a loop, we must retrieve facts from knowledge that has been acquired in such a way as to be worthy of our trust, even if the sources of such knowledge might not be the paragons of virtue.
was this for a tv show?
Yes. This program is almost unbelievably erudite by the standards of television today.
There is a major problem with Logical Positivism - and that is, experiments which produce results that confound expected probabilities, such as things in the Paranormal, eg ganzfeld experiments. A class of experiment whereby a game is played which, according to rational Laws , should have results equal to blind chance (eg choosing 1 of 4 cards giving a 25% success rate) but which in practice does not. Many aspects of science are best modelled by chance - eg quantum dynamics and nuclear decay. So probability is an accepted thing, yet if there is an observation involving sentient beings and deviation from probability, can one definitively say it is erroneous? And QM requires an observer - yet, no one really has a definition of what an observer is. Does non-dualism have an answer?
Excellent thinking, my friend!
There is no deviation from probability. As long as there is a future, the weighing of possible outcomes exists.
@@MiesAnthrophy There is no deviation from probability at any point whatsoever because probability never tells us that something will happen at a certain point, only that, out of all the possible future outcomes, how many of those are covered by a certain type of event.
In other words, probability only informs us about a selection of possible variations that may or may not happen at any point in time.
Ayer needs to pull his trousers up a bit higher
ayer is like an owl, so cute
16:45 ālea iacta est
"Anything that can't be verified by the scientific method is false"
What about your statement? How can you verify that statement using the scientific method? .....oh.
Surely art becoming its own subject is characteristic of romanticiism. It didn't start with modernism.
treatment of other minds ethics
Cool Interview. But big mistake to conflate G.E. Moore and positivism
Moritz Schlick?
The leader of the Vienna Circle?
Is this for real?
No I think he was just joking. Everybody knows Descartes was the real leader.
AJ Ayer’s trousers approach his armpits.
Did Logical Positivism die of boredom?
ÄiiÅ
Basically arguing against the existence of god. They didn't read Kant very well.
Bingo 😌💭
Cigarette smoke anyone?
This is all well and good until you see a ghost 😂
Logical Positivism was a dog chasing its tail.
And when catching its tail, devours it raw
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!
If any philosopher deserved hanging Ayer did, He imported whole into mid 1930s Oxford a philosophy so sterile,,,and hostile to ethics and aesthetics,,that Oxford philosophy was blighted for decades,Still,,Isaiah Berlin had respect for him,,,and I respect Berlin,But surely T,H, Green and R,G, Collingwood were the right tradition
Deserved hanging? What are you, an executioner? Get out.
If it hadn't been for logical positivism, philosophy would probably be seen as a subject only worthy of study for priests in training and antiquarians who investigate the history of science.
Philosophy is still a dying discipline, but at least people pretend it matters because of the wide reaching consequences of trolley problems, P-zombies, and Chinese room thought experiments in ethicsturbation and online debates about "artificial" ""intelligence"".