Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
By
Logical Positivism has been defined as that discipline or philosophy which starts
with sense experience and then only makes moves consistent with fairly rigid logical
inferences. Previously, I have argued that Logical Positivism is flawed because sense
experience is not a reliable indicator or reality. Here, however, I am arguing that Logical
Positivism is flawed because, at present, there does not seem to be a uniform logic that is
A v B
Now, when I was taught Symbolic Logic in college a long time ago, it was clear
that the “ v “ sign meant that A and B were held in the disjunctive. In other words, the
apparent that A may be true, or, B may be true, but not both A and B together can be
true. In fact there is a different syllogism for that case, and it is as follows:
syllogisms as the same creates a problem because they do not mean the same thing.
Take the following hypothetical. A and B. are running in a race. The racing
committee has decided that the race should be adjudicated by the syllogism, “A or B.”
That is, either A wins or B wins. On this approach, only one person can win the race.
“A v B” really means “A and/or B”, then it is clear that not only could A or B win the
race, but also it is clear there could be a tie with A and B both winning. I have never seen
this result either in a horse race or a track and field competition. There is supposed to be
just one winner. To the extent that policy makers and politicians are using the “and/or”
interpretation of “A v B,” then illogical results will take place. Moreover, to the extent
that the “A v B” interpretation is seen as legitimate rather than illogical, then it is clear
that there is no basis for an objective logical positivism. For logical positivism to be
correct, there must be only one correct symbolic logic, not two or more.