A splendid video about evolution

The Hamiltonian gives rise to a set of solutions, one ground state and a set of excited states,  and the general solution is a superposition of these. In terms of logical positivism, the general solution is meaningful because it yields observable predictions. Without additional constraints it is the general solution that describes the QM system defined by a given Hamiltonian.

But observable predictions do not fill our lives with actual meaning ~ that is the way of the heartless pragmatist, who does anything purely because of its mechanical benefit. Which can lead to any number of atrocities and ethical horrors in name of it.

But from a logical positivist perspective, the deeper issue is that the question itself is meaningless, because the terms involved can’t be empirically defined or verified. So the sentence has propositional form, but it doesn’t express a cognitively meaningful proposition, which means we can’t meaningfully assign it a truth value at all.

It seems the assertion of logical positivism itself would need to be empirically defined and then verified?

It seems the assertion of logical positivism itself would need to be empirically defined and then verified?

You are right! The principle of verification itself cannot be empirically verified - it's a methodological framework or criterion for evaluating statements, not an empirical claim about the world.

You are right! The principle of verification itself cannot be empirically verified - it's a methodological framework or criterion for evaluating statements, not an empirical claim about the world.

It would therefore seem that logical positivism is self-refuting, as it itself cannot confirm its own validity per its claims about knowledge.

You are right! The principle of verification itself cannot be empirically verified - it's a methodological framework or criterion for evaluating statements, not an empirical claim about the world.

But the principle itself demands something it cannot provide then?

It seems we can only assess it based on our rationality...which then leads to the question of what grounds rationality itself...the mysterious "groundless ground of Reason" as Schelling would say...

But the principle itself demands something it cannot provide then?

It seems we can only assess it based on our rationality...which then leads to the question of what grounds rationality itself...the mysterious "groundless ground of Reason" as Schelling would say...

You make a valid philosophical point about the self-referential challenge of logical positivism - it's indeed one reason why strict logical positivism isn't considered the final word in philosophy of science.

However, in the specific context of intelligent design, I think the demand for empirical verification is entirely justified. ID proponents are making specific claims about the natural world - that certain biological structures require a designer, that complexity cannot arise through natural processes, etc. These are empirical claims about how the world actually works, not abstract philosophical principles.
If ID wants to be taken seriously as science rather than philosophy or theology, it needs to meet the same evidential standards as any other scientific theory: testable predictions, empirical evidence, falsifiability. The fact that the philosophical foundations of empiricism have their own complexities doesn't excuse ID from providing actual scientific evidence for its claims about biological systems.

You make a valid philosophical point about the self-referential challenge of logical positivism - it's indeed one reason why strict logical positivism isn't considered the final word in philosophy of science.

However, in the specific context of intelligent design, I think the demand for empirical verification is entirely justified. ID proponents are making specific claims about the natural world - that certain biological structures require a designer, that complexity cannot arise through natural processes, etc. These are empirical claims about how the world actually works, not abstract philosophical principles.
If ID wants to be taken seriously as science rather than philosophy or theology, it needs to meet the same evidential standards as any other scientific theory: testable predictions, empirical evidence, falsifiability. The fact that the philosophical foundations of empiricism have their own complexities doesn't excuse ID from providing actual scientific evidence for its claims about biological systems.

Oh I agree about ID, that is a specific claim that needs hard evidence showing clear interventions in the evolutionary chain across time.

You make a valid philosophical point about the self-referential challenge of logical positivism - it's indeed one reason why strict logical positivism isn't considered the final word in philosophy of science.

However, in the specific context of intelligent design, I think the demand for empirical verification is entirely justified. ID proponents are making specific claims about the natural world - that certain biological structures require a designer, that complexity cannot arise through natural processes, etc. These are empirical claims about how the world actually works, not abstract philosophical principles.
If ID wants to be taken seriously as science rather than philosophy or theology, it needs to meet the same evidential standards as any other scientific theory: testable predictions, empirical evidence, falsifiability. The fact that the philosophical foundations of empiricism have their own complexities doesn't excuse ID from providing actual scientific evidence for its claims about biological systems.

We need to hold Darwinism to the same standards ~ because at the moment, it's a complete joke with no scientific or hard evidence to show for any of its claims. Just-so stories and mythological narratives are not good enough.

ID has presented a lot of evidence for intent and design being apparent in many biological systems ~ they've even corrected the errors made by many Darwinians. "Junk DNA" for example, and the "1% similar with chimps" claims made, which are shown to not be scientific at all.

ID is admitted philosophical ~ but so is Darwinism. Neither are hard science, as it were. But only Darwinism claims to be hard science.

We need to hold Darwinism to the same standards ~ because at the moment, it's a complete joke with no scientific or hard evidence to show for any of its claims. Just-so stories and mythological narratives are not good enough.

ID has presented a lot of evidence for intent and design being apparent in many biological systems ~ they've even corrected the errors made by many Darwinians. "Junk DNA" for example, and the "1% similar with chimps" claims made, which are shown to not be scientific at all.

ID is admitted philosophical ~ but so is Darwinism. Neither are hard science, as it were. But only Darwinism claims to be hard science.

Doesn't ID itself depend on the science surrounding evolution?

I'm happy to accept that Darwinists are papering over flaws, especially where they might indicated top down intervention by an immaterial entity...but I can't help but feel it's going too far to say it's a "complete joke"?

Doesn't ID itself depend on the science surrounding evolution?

I'm happy to accept that Darwinists are papering over flaws, especially where they might indicated top down intervention by an immaterial entity...but I can't help but feel it's going too far to say it's a "complete joke"?

If you mean biology, then certainly, but ID acts more of a interpretative philosophical framework, I would have thought?

Darwinism is a complete joke in the sense that there's no actual science to be found ~ it itself is just an interpretation of biology. The joke is that Darwinists frame their views as hard science, when they don't act anything like the rest of the other fields of biology. It's not even biology, really.