• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • (sub)Text
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Can We Be Philosophical Realists?

November 16, 2011 by Tom McDonald 4 Comments

The analytic philosophy of logical positivism or logical empiricism, which dominated 20th-century Anglo-American scientific thinking, leaves philosophy with a complex and problematic legacy that must be addressed and overcome if we are to have any hope of a renewed, meaningful, philosophically rational realism.

On the one hand, the positivist view of philosophy is deflationary, diminishing and even de-legitimizing the very notion of philosophy.  The idea that philosophy was to become 'underlaborer to science', following Lockean empiricism, proved quite popular with scientists and science enthusiasts, and to this day informs the common belief that philosophy can be wholly displaced by empirical investigation on pretty much any question. On the other hand, following the linguistic turn and Thomas Kuhn's historicist account of science, many disillusioned analytical philosophers have become convinced that their discipline cannot really provide any affirmative, unchanging, principal foundations to scientific thinking. For example, the principles of method and observational verification sounded great until one realized that the principles themselves couldn't be reached by method nor verified by an empirical observation.

The problem we're given here is that despite the serious challenges to Whiggish science triumphalism recognized by Kuhnian history of science, the latter has produced only criticisms but no affirmative solutions, and the philosophical tenets of logical positivism continue in fact to provide the ideological and normative principals which inform much thinking about science in the public sphere. So philosophy is still widely granted some limited importance as a form of critical defense by non-positivistic and humanistic areas of thought, but the influence of logical positivism remains strong.  It is evident everywhere someone asserts in the public sphere that empirical investigation functions (in fact or potentially) wholly independently of philosophical considerations.

For example, we often see the positivistic attitude in the 'God debates' by enthusiasts of the New Atheism. Sam Harris has said that 'what we now know in neuroscience shows that there is no free will'. In such statements we can detect the thrill Harris must get from making a big, threatening, macho statement presumably resounding from the bowels of deep science out towards the unscientific public with their silly myths and folk beliefs. This is the sort of attitude the legacy of positivism continues to leave us with. It is clear here that Harris is either philosophically ignorant or uninterested in questioning his own concept of free will, where it derives from, or the question of how it is possible in the first place that a conflict between concept and reality could arise at all. Positivism prevents intelligence from recognizing itself. It is an incredible irony and a mark of philosophical shallowness that Harris and his followers claim the banner of 'reason' when their positivism operates with a diminished, instrumental, utilitarian sense of 'reason' that is in conflict with their claim to realism.

Check out this site to see the influential metaphysical picture of reality that is the legacy of logical positivism.

Tom McDonald

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Misc. Philosophical Musings, Web Detritus Tagged With: metaphysical realism, philosophy blog, philosophy of science, realism

Comments

  1. Anonymous says

    November 16, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    You guys should interview Alex Rosenberg on his ATHEIST’S GUIDE TO REALITY.

    Reply
  2. Yisrael Smith says

    November 17, 2011 at 2:15 am

    Well put. This line of thinking receives more support when one takes a studied look at the nature of empirical studies in the sciences today and the complex and sometimes questionable statistical analyses they rest upon. Many of the claims like those made by Harris rely on statistical significance that has been cooked up out of a hell of a lot of noise.

    Reply
  3. Ryan says

    November 19, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    ‘what we now know in neuroscience shows that there is no free will’

    Sam Harris is entirely correct in his analysis. Does this commentator propose that we are to change the course of atomic particles through the will? And not only this, but he believes it is such an obvious state of affairs that he should put forward this unnecessarily inflammatory response.

    Reply
  4. bobby says

    November 29, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    I didn’t get this sent to me. Hey guys, yet another request….
    check it out this idea: an episode on people ‘like’ Robert Anton Wilson.. OK, so he’s unique as a personality and writer, SO what I mean is-
    1) those “philosophical” writers that have a HUGE readership/following *outside* the academy and professional professor philosophy
    2) and that are ignored by the respectable professionals.
    Hmmm, you’ve maybe done this? Please not Ayn Rand unless to decimate her, the foul witch. Or do her too.
    Robert Anton Wilson is one and here’s a good one- Ken Wilber.

    And also just more engagement w/ pseudo-personal philosophies of celebrities blabbers with undeserved cred and legions of sheeple followers like Oprah, etc.

    And “O”‘s fav ‘mystic’ Eckhart Tolle.
    Oh and …dudes…. an episode on “self-help” or “self-improvement” ‘gurus’ like that hyper-loon Tony Robins. Brian Tracey –tie his crap maybe into the right-wing politics implicit in some of his stuff…
    ideas, just some ideas.Got excited when I saw RAW mentioned Because it I was wondering ’bout him lately. I thought I’d read Rorty said that same silly line, “reality is what you can get away with.” RAW isn’t a great philosopher and while you’d offend his dope smoking fans, it’d be for the good if you cleared the air of some b.s.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Evan Hadkins on Ep. 296: Heidegger Questions Being (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Tony L on Science, Religion, and Secularism Part XXV: Charles Taylor—The Protestant Reformation and the Rise of the Disciplinary Society
  • Paul D. Van Pelt on PREVIEW-Ep. 295: Kant on Preventing War (Part Three
  • Evan Hadkins on PEL Nightcap June 2022
  • Wayne Barr on PEL Nightcap June 2022

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2022 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2022 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in