need some help here in my question regarding : How is legitimate science consistent with logical positivism?
This is a difficult question to answer as science is not based on logic. Fundamentally the basis of science is a certain number of assumptions, such as empiricism, which is the belief that knowledge about the physical world comes from using our senses. Philosophically empiricism has been at odds with rationalism for centuries with entire books written on the one side building up science and the other side tearing it down. . This is not to say that science has no reasoning involved in it. Generally speaking science relies on a form of inductive reasoning. That is to say that dropping a rock several times resulted in a similar result that the rock will always behave in that manner. Experts in logic and epistemology have criticized the use of induction in science for centuries. . The most recent destruction of an attempted logical foundation for science was the abandonment of logical positivism, which had been proposed as a cure for science's shortcomings back in the 1920s. Fundamentally logical positivism was often associated with verificationism, that is the claim that a statement is only meaningful if there is a finite procedure for conclusively determining its truth. Unfortunately for logical positivism, there is no finite procedure for conclusively determining the truth of logical positivism. . Currently science tries to avoid the logical problems that plague it using two methods: Popperian falsification or Bayesian statistics and both methods have their adherents. Generally speaking nowadays statistics is more common especially in medical research where the importance of reaching a 95 percent statistical confidence level is crucial for getting one's work published. . So basically the answer to this question is well beyond the ability of this website to answer. Interested persons should read up on the philosophy of science and/or inductive reasoning.
Logical Methods in Computer Science was created in 2005.
Francesco Coniglione has written: 'La scienza impossibile' -- subject(s): Knowledge, Theory of, Logical positivism, Rationalism, Theory of Knowledge 'La parola liberatrice' -- subject(s): Philosophy and science, History, Analysis (Philosophy)
Because nature and logical and systematic, the more science went deep in nature the more logical and systematic it become.
Opinions about biological warfare being a legitimate use of science will differ. It is my opinion that using science to hurt and destroy human beings, animals, the environment or anything at all is NEVER a legitimate use of science.
Calvin Blanchard has written: 'A crisis chapter on government' -- subject(s): Politics and government 'The essence of science' -- subject(s): Positivism, Social sciences 'The religion of science' -- subject(s): Free thought 'The essence of science; or, The catechism of positive sociology, and physical mentality' -- subject(s): Positivism, Social sciences
logical is a new process that can be use in science that's all
Friedrich Stadler has written: 'The present situation in the philosophy of science' -- subject(s): Wissenschaftstheorie, Sozialwissenschaften, Science, Philosophy, Wissenschaftsphilosophie, Kulturwissenschaften, Research 'Studien zum Wiener Kreis' -- subject(s): Vienna circle, Bio-bibliography 'Bausteine wissenschaftlicher Weltauffassung' -- subject(s): Logical positivism, Analysis (Philosophy), Modern Philosophy
inference
Logical thinking
anything!anything is possible.
Sports INVOLVE a lot of science, but I don't believe sport is considered a legitimate science.