How many of you autists ARE NOT positivists? And why not? I bet

File: tt.jpg (82KB, 797x423px)

82KB, 797x423px

>>8335844
Then where do you go when you want to find out how the world actually is? Metaphysics?

>>8335844
It's well-known since the fucking Kant that one should not only account for what is perceived, but also for what (or who) is perceiving.

>>8335851

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipositivism

>>8335844
dont know about positivism but i believe in the power of positive thinking

>>8335864
I don't care about social problems. I'm talking about problems dealing with fundamental objective reality. What philosophical benefits does positivism afford over that of scientific realism?

>>8335859
And I also believe that Hume's point about empirical knowledge, that it has a belief at its heart, is unrefuted still.

>>8335877

What's the distinction between positivism and "scientific realism". Isn't it the same thing? The philosophical belief that only knowledge gathered through the scientific method is valid.

>>8335891
positivism rejects the existence of unobservables. postulated scientific entities included

By that definition, everyone is a positivist. So what kind of question is this?

>>8335844
Positivism doesn't really do much to solve any actual philosophical problems. It's like solipsism in that it works for its tiny domain, yet it doesn't go anywhere beyond it.

>>8336626
>philosophical "problems"

>>8336626
>Positivism doesn't really do much to solve any actual philosophical problems
Anything that cant be solved with a scientific approach cant be meaningfully solved at all

>>8336561

Everyone isn't a positivist, but the majority of people are, since it's the dominant epistemology in the Western world.

>>8336695
You can't act as though you are not a positivist though. It's not physically possible.

>>8336693

>reconciling a romance cannot be solved with the scientific method, hence it cannot be meaningfully solved.

You're demonstrating the limitations of positivism ITT.

>>8336697

Why? Elaborate, I don't want to type out several paragraphs based on assumptions.

>>8336626

Only the autists on /sci/, who are adherents of scientism, believe otherwise. Some parts of the human experience are beyond the scientific method.

>>8336697
of course you can. Scientific realists and mathematical platonists do it every day

>>8336708
>Some parts of the human experience are beyond the scientific method.
I can read wikipedia too, but I'm not stupid enough to take everything from it as fact.

Why are people itt conflating reason and science? You can't figure out how to reconcile a romance via the scientific method, but you absolutely can figure it out by applying reason and logic to sensory experience.

>>8335844
I used to be a good realist goy like every other engineer
Then I did a degree in physics and I became a realist.

Positivism is about as outdated as the physics engineers learn.

I'm just autistic and I believe that that fact will help me derive a truly superior personal philosophy

>>8336693
The scientific approach is inferior, conclusions drawn from pure logic are the only things that can truly be known.