Wait, really? Where?
i alsothink it is difficult to understand!
It’s worth pointing out that Hoppe also labels Hayek a positivist.
I think it is false to call Hayek a positivst, but it is correct to say that he was influenced by British empiricism (like J.S. Mill); and although he thought elements of economics (and other sciences) were a priori that much of our substantive knowledge and ability to think about economic problems relied on empirical evidence and generalizations about human beings and social orders that were not strictly deducible. Insofar as it goes, one may agree that this is true as regards economic history; but one may also object that it is only through extensive and definite a priori theories of economics can we make any sense of economic data. Perhaps one of the differences stems from much of the classical ‘Austrian’ school having an ontological and causal-realistic theory of the meaning of economic propositions, where as Hayek has taken a more epistemic view.
Does Hoppe actually claim that Popper is a logical positivist?
…
Yes. About eight minutes in.
Somebody needs hearing aids. (From memory back when this was posted) he says that the Vienna Circle was logical positivists and that Popper was on the periphery of the VC. I wouldn’t call him a positivist, but there are still serious flaws in his thinking.
It’s worth pointing out that Hoppe also labels Hayek a positivist.
Round 3 of false claims about senior fellows of LvMI Giles? I’m reporting this one. I think it’s amazing that a troll like you made it to almost 5K posts.
I can hear just fine. Why don’t you listen to it again? Hoppe said that Karl Popper was on the fringe of the Vienna Circle, which is to say that he was on the fringe of positivism.
I can hear just fine. Why don’t you listen to it again?
Fringe, periphery, same thing. Why don’t you point out what I am missing and I will check it out when I am back. It’s basically what I said AFAIK.
Hoppe said that Karl Popper was on the fringe of the Vienna Circle, which is to say that he was on the fringe of positivism.
Does that mean he is a positivist? I hung out at some Campaign for Liberty meetings for a while. so you could say I was on teh fringe of minarchism. I was still an anarchist though.
Round 3 of false claims about senior fellows of LvMI Giles? I’m reporting this one. I think it’s amazing that a troll like you made it to almost 5K posts.
Actually, I was just about to say that I think I may have been wrong on this. I looked for the interview in question and didn’t find that particular claim by Hoppe. I found plenty of other ridiculous stuff and angry bluster, but not this particular claim.
What exactly am I being reported for? Disagreeing with an LvMI fellow I suppose, but then, I’ve seen a lot worse being said around here about other living intellectuals. The only difference is that when these intellectuals were critiqued, and believe me, I use the term loosely, the ones doing it were lauded. I suppose these prominent intellectuals weren’t so “fortunate” as to be associated with the LvMI.
Yes, in the context of the speech, that appears to be what Hoppe is saying.
You really should listen to it. What you’re missing are the arguments for why falsificationism is a version of positivism.
I suggest reading Hayek’s The Counter Revolution of Science.
Good day.
I don’t think Hayek’s CRS accurately reflects the views of most positivists or welfare/interventionist statists, so his criticisms there are irrelevant.
Perhaps modern positivists are unaware of their origins? I think it is interesting for us to know how did this train of thought originate, what are their motives, and who where the leading progenitors in the positivist movement.
I think it makes a good reference for a critique of collectivist methodology.
I think it makes a good reference for a critique of collectivist methodology.
It is useful to critique some methodologies of social science as well as some particular ideas about the role of the State in an interventionist society. But I don’t think it actually applies to what many/most social scientists, positivists and Progressive or Socialist theorists actually believed. It is, at best, a strain or element in some of their views but by no means central.
The subtitle is Studies on the Abuse of Reason. I would hardly say it is a strain to say Comte, Hegel, and Saint-Simon, are heavy influences on socialist thought. These thinkers turn science on it’s head when they use the physical techniques of science and use it on sociology. I think it is important to note that this sort of thinking was a slow development over the eighteenth and nineteenth century. From what I know of Progressivism, it’s origins are closer to early twentieth century. I would be bold enough to say that the hardened etatism of socialist thinkers didn’t arrive until the Fabians.
Plus I thought this thread was about positivism. If students want to learn what it’s epistemological origins are, than The Counter Revolution of Science is a great place to look.
Comte might be accurately criticized, but his influence on modern interventionism and logical positivism is scant, and indirect at that. Hegel was an influence on some socialists, but I would say that most modern socialists are under the sway of ‘reform’ Marxism, which is neither Marxist nor Hegelian. What’s more, the book really says nothing that is applicable to Hegel, since Hegel is an idealist and not a positivist or a social-engineer.
‘What’s more, the book really says nothing that is applicable to Hegel, since Hegel is an idealist and not a positivist or a social-engineer.’
What? Hegel an idealist? Hegel was perfectly content with rationalizing and legitimizing the current events of his day with his theory of history. Everything that existed was rational. How can a man who propounded that the state is the institution of public sentiment of the masses and the full realization of their will not be seen as a social engineer in some fashion? The state was the embodiment of societal progression. Oh sure he thought that private lives and public lives conflicted but Hegel never sided against the premise that the state should always win out. Now I agree that he wasn’t a positivist in some respect but the man was most certainly not an idealist nor a proponent of lassiez-faire when it came to social order.
Hegel never gave much thought to what the future held. He was only interested in explaining what came before and what was happening now. That is not the attitude of an idealist.
What? Hegel an idealist? Hegel was perfectly content with rationalizing and legitimizing the current events of his day with his theory of history.
Which doesn’t in the least alter the fact that Hegel’s metaphysical theory was a major formative branch of Idealism, which is in strictist conflict with positivism.
If you knew anything about Hegel’s philosophy, you would have realised that before posting that whole irrelevant rant.
What? Hegel an idealist?
I do not see a way to use any commonly used defintions to not call Hegel an idealist. It is almost akin to saying Descartes isn’t a rationalist. Are you familier with the term German Idealism?
If you knew anything about Hegel’s philosophy, you would have realised that before posting that whole irrelevant rant.
Lol, I guess I was a day late and a dollar short on my post. I guess I owe you a coke.
As a person in a field of study that can be said to be split or schizophrenic on the issue of positivism vs non-positivism, I’ll say that I’m firmly a non-positivism for at least one reason: structure. Positivism seems to often lack a basis or means to justify the structure of things as they are or as given. Such structure doesn’t need to be as confounded as claiming it’s “God’s Plan”, but it does need to fit within a larger framework that can explain the scope (or limitation) of a given phenomena or artifact of Nature.
In CompSci, positivism is mostly held by those that don’t give a rat’s ass about the concept of structure. One could easily relegate such folks to the category of code monkey, but I’ve read from even CompSci theorists who are diehard positivists, so I can’t say it’s a fringe stance in my field. But the meat or heart of CompSci seems to be filled with folks who are either implicit non-positivists or ones who are explicit like myself, and we too seem to fill rank across the range of theory to application.
I guess what bothers me is the constant attempt by positivists to justify their position even though history as proven their position not tenable in larger scheme of computer science. I just wonder how long will it take before other fields see this silent protest against positivism. o.o
No, that means your definition is more “popular”. That’s all.