3 ms·
> but the broad outlines of positivism are widely accepted by scientists and engineers. I don't think anyone doubts that a positivist framework is useful for s
by igammarays 8y ago
> but the broad outlines of positivism are widely accepted by scientists and engineers.
I don't think anyone doubts that a positivist framework is useful for science and engineering, but why should it hold elsewhere? Scientists and engineers are also stereotypically bad at social skills and politics. Perhaps because a different, non-positivist epistemological framework is required to thrive in other fields?
- CamperBob2 8y agoI don't think anyone doubts that a positivist framework is useful for science and engineering, but why should it hold elsewhere? It should hold everywhere another framework has not proven to be more effective. Scientists and engineers are also stereotypically bad at social skills and politics. Perhaps because a different, non-positivist epistemological framework is required to thrive in other fields? I don't think excessive positivism is a problem with politics today, do you?
- emmelaich 8y agoYou're mixing spheres here; social vs science. As to why logical positivism is not successful in fields in science and engineering -- I would say that in general it is not possible to say that "any two observably equivalent theories are one and the same theory" In particular, outside of science and engineering, it not possible to get a sufficient precision on what is "observably equivalent". Actually, sufficient precision is usually not possible within science and engineering either.
- gaius 8y agoScientists and engineers are also stereotypically bad at social skills and politics. That is a narrative whose sole purpose is to disenfranchise and disempower the STEM community.
- gaius 8y agoInteresting downvotes here, are you all fighting for your right to be excluded from politics due to stereotypes and prejudice?