positivism elaboration?

Question

can someone elaborate on these facts about positivism? maybe tell me what some implications of these things are?
1), no theory can be formed without being based upon significant observable evidence. But just the same no useful information can be surmised if there is no theory to provide some guidance.
2)Logical Positivism claims that at any point in time either sensory perception or logical thought can be applied, never both
3)positivism seemed to calm nationalistic war sentiments after the first world war by standardizing knowledge.

Answer 1

one well-known implication is that positivism violates the first rule. Claiming that no theory can be formed without sufficient empirical evidence undermines positivism's theory, since the idea that no theory can be formed without sufficient empirical evidence does not have sufficient empirical evidence to back itself up.

I don't know about whether or not positivsm calmed nationalistic war sentiments. I've always been taught that it was the horror of the first world war that did that. And there are downsides to standardizing knowledge - alternatives are discounted a priori, science can blind itself to its own failings by believing that it is the objective truth, the establishment which uses the findings of the standardized knowledge can entrench its own power and biases under the guise of "objectivity" without resistance. The standardization of knowledge plays a big role in power: when knowledge is standardized, those that fall outside are automatically excluded. When knowledge is standardized, it presupposes that "non-standard" epistemologies are wrong, and the practitioners of those are, a priori, wrong and in need of correction.

Positivism also has had the negative effect of trying to reduce everything to the empirical. In some areas this may work well, but in many areas it cannot. And even in the areas where empiricism works, it relies on non-empirical, non-positivist ideas to make sense of the world. I think its comparable to the old divide between scientific theories and scientific facts. The facts are what can be positivistically demonstrated, but you need a theory, which cannot be empirically shown, to connect the facts. I think positivism downplays the role that non-empirical ideas play. I think that insistence on empirical proof is at the root of some of the controversial issues today - global warming and evolution. The opponents of the ideas of both ask for certain evidence, and when scientists cannot demonstrate total empirical evidence, only facts and a theory which cannot be "proven" empirically, the opponents take that as evidence that those theories are wrong. Positivism directly supports this position, and it does so by requiring too high a standard for theories to meet. Too high a standard even for itself to meet, it turns out.

And what about when a course of action is required, but no available course has sufficient available evidence? Global warming might be such a situation. A course of action is required, but one side holds out for absolute empirical confirmation, but such confirmation never occurs. Usually we don't notice this because most issues aren't controversial, but in the case of a controversial issue, positivism can provide support where support is not justified. Ethics could be another example. Ethics is something that is needed, but cannot be based on observable evidence. How can positivsm solve that problem? Wouldn't it have to take the pragmatic course and advocate theories on little observable evidence?

I guess I only partially answered your question. I couldn't think of anything to say about 2, although it seems to me that perception and logic are used simultaneously all the time - you don't make an observation, then stop observing and reason about it. You reason about while you are perceiving it as well as after the fact, it seems to me.

Answer 2

positivism is only relative to observe referendum, and does not take into account the possibility of the unseen or heard. For instance Spiritualism, which is in itself a positivism that brings us back to realism, or relativity!