What's wrong with Positivism?

People incorrectly think that you must be positivist for appreciating the power of the scientific method.

>>941981
It assumes that things can be broken down into smaller parts. The sum equals its parts. Whereas those who are anti-positivist, believe that the sum is greater than its parts.

>>941981
nothing

A lot of positivists are just really obnoxious.

>>941981
you can't fool me, Pangloss

>>941981
it can't be proven but pretends it can

>>941981
Literally ever single time I see his pic I want a play Vicky 2

>>941981
Nothing, there's just obnoxious Pajeets from /sci/ that pretend it's something it's not because they hate learning stuff.

>>941981

Allan Greenspan was a logical positivist before he got converted to Randian objectivism.

Think about that the next time you defend any form of positivism.

>>942297
So positivism somehow does't grasp the concept of emergent properties despite that being a fairly common concept in science?

>>942792
No, he have no idea what he's talking about.

Disregarding conceptional problems like dude induction lmao it's not even self-consistent and fails to account for some pretty basic issues like the subjectivity of experience.

>>942785
Objectivism is a form of positivism so its not that surprising

>>942828
Can you explain then?