So, what’s all this about a Postivist debacle I keep hearing? Who were the positivists, what did we have in common with them, what was different, and how and why did they fail?
Positivism states that the only authentic knowledge is that which allows verification and assumes that the only valid knowledge is scientific.[2] Enlightenment thinkers such as Henri de Saint-Simon, Pierre-Simon Laplace and Auguste Comte believed the scientific method, the circular dependence of theory and observation, must replace metaphysics in the history of thought. Sociological positivism was reformulated by Émile Durkheim as a foundation to social research.[13]
Wilhelm Dilthey, in contrast, fought strenuously against the assumption that only explanations derived from science are valid,[9] Dilthey was in part influenced by the historicism of Leopold von Ranke.[9] restating the argument, already found in Vico, that scientific explanations do not reach the inner nature of phenomena[9] and it is humanistic knowledge that gives us insight into thoughts, feelings and desires.[9]
I’m no expert on the history of epistemology, but this may answer some of your questions, at least as they relate to Eliezer’s particular take on our agenda.
We consider probabilities authentic knowledge. Since we are Bayesianists and not Frequentists those probabilities are sometimes about questions which can not be scientifically tested. Science requires repeatable verification, and our probabilities don’t stand up to that test.
So, what’s all this about a Postivist debacle I keep hearing? Who were the positivists, what did we have in common with them, what was different, and how and why did they fail?
Sounds exactly like us...
I’m no expert on the history of epistemology, but this may answer some of your questions, at least as they relate to Eliezer’s particular take on our agenda.
We consider probabilities authentic knowledge. Since we are Bayesianists and not Frequentists those probabilities are sometimes about questions which can not be scientifically tested. Science requires repeatable verification, and our probabilities don’t stand up to that test.
I assume this was downvoted for inaccuracy. If so, I would like know what you think is wrong please.