Explain what's wrong with positivism without resorting to

>>356704
It's literally autism

autismlol

artism

File: 41HUvZOXbHL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (14KB, 229x346px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 229x346px

Read this

File: image.jpg (87KB, 419x536px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 419x536px

>>356704
"Only empirically verifiable statements have value" can't be empirically verified.

Reminder autism is not an insult. Being autistic is something for which one should feel proud, not ashamed. It's a compliment because autism allows one to have radically different perspectives on things that can lead to important discoveries or great works of art which neurotypical people don't have the capability of producing.

video related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_klmfrj2jM

Positivism is useless in matters of ethics, law, just day-to-day life actual people care about.

I agree that what can't be described by language is meaningless in the empirical process, BUT autists think that's a green light to dismiss love, art, beauty, literally anything that doesn't pertain to sterile abstractions and mind-numbing logic-chopping.

Like sorry bruh, if I can't describe a peak experience with formal logic that says more about the limitations of positivism than it does about the artificiality of emotion.

>>356747
^This, largely.

>[Sociology is ] ... the science whose object is to interpret the meaning of social action and thereby give a causal explanation of the way in which the action proceeds and the effects which it produces. By 'action' in this definition is meant the human behaviour when and to the extent the agent or agents see it as subjectively meaningful ... the meaning to which we refer may be either (a) the meaning actually intended either by an individual agent on a particular historical occasion or by a number of agents on an approximate average in a given set of cases, or (b) the meaning attributed to the agent or agents, as types, in a pure type constructed in the abstract. In neither case is the 'meaning' thought of as somehow objectively 'correct' or 'true' by some metaphysical criterion. This is the difference between the empirical sciences of action, such as sociology and history, and any kind of a priori discipline, such as jurisprudence, logic, ethics, or aesthetics whose aim is to extract from their subject-matter 'correct' or 'valid' meaning.

—Max Weber, The Nature of Social Action 1922

>>356747
Raymond Tallis is that you

>>356729
I like how even the guy who invented positivism thinks it's bullshit

>>356744
What if I called you a faggot instead?

Faggot

The verifiability principle got btfo.

>>356800
This

>>356704
>Theorethical concepts
>Dispositional properties
>Induction problem
>Theory ladeness of observation
>Theory ladeness of language
>Duhem-quine Thesis

Positivism has been BTFO a long time ago. Why do uneducated faggots still argue about this? That's the problem with /his/ : People circe-jerking about stuff they don't know.

>>356800
Kek btfo