Saturday 20 June 2020

Modern Theories And Researches

Three Hearts And Three Lions.

According to the British lecturer quoted in the NOTE (pp. 7-11) (see the above link):

relativity and quantum mechanics prove that observers are inseperable from what they observe;

logical positivism has shown that many supposed facts are really constructs or conventions;

psychic researchers have discovered unsuspected mental powers;

maybe some old myths are more than superstitions.

We are dependent on the observed world to the extent that we are part of it and would not exist without it. How we observe and perceive it depends both on us and on it.

Logical positivism was an extreme empiricist philosophical position. I heard AJ Ayer say on TV that he had thought that, since only verifiable propositions were meaningful, propositions about the Roman occupation of Britain meant only that archaeologists now find objects that they interpret as Roman coins, pottery etc. In other words, the logical positivists went too far, as Ayer cheerfully acknowledged.

Have psychic researchers discovered anything yet? There seems to have been an early twentieth century expectation that they were about to do so.

The reference to relativity and quantum mechanics reminds us of what happened to those disciplines in the goetic universe but this is not there.

7 comments:

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I too thought logical positivism goes too far. A simple example would be the observation that 2 + 2 is always and can only BE 4. Not a mere construct or convention.

Anderson definitely leaned to the view that there was SOMETHING to the idea psychic talents might be real. The problem was that the evidence for that was difficult to obtain, quantify, verify, etc.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

Logical positivists recognized logical as well as empirical propositions.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

But my point was that logical positivism has serious and real limitations.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

It does. Ayer said that his celebrated book was mostly wrong! - but right in empiricist spirit.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Not sure how to make sense of an author saying his own book was mostly wrong but "right" in whatever an "empiricist spirit" means.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

Wrong in many details and in particular arguments but right in emphasizing the centrality of experience to knowledge.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

That clarifies what you or Ayer meant. And making a point I can agree with.

Ad astra! Sean