Benjamin Meixner, 12302260

1. Logical Empiricism

a) Foundational Principles

The term “Logical Empiricism” refers to a philosophical stance where its advocates focus on a specific set of principles.
The foundational principles include a strong belief that knowledge is primarily derived from experience, which places limits on what constitutes legitimate scientific inquiry.
Logical Empiricists emphasize the importance of using logical analysis to clarify traditional philosophical problems, transforming them into empirical questions that can be tested through scientific methods.

The conception of logic embraced by Logical Empiricists is rooted in a modern perspective, moving beyond Aristotelian traditions.
Modern advances in formal logic during the late 19th century, notably by figures such as Frege and Russell, provided essential contributions that shaped this new understanding.

Logical Empiricists advocate for a method that emphasizes verification in the empirical sciences.
They utilize terminology such as “protocol statements” to define foundational empirical evidence.
For instance, an example of applying this method could be the hypothesis, “All football players score goals,” which can be tested by observing matches to confirm or deny the statement.

Logical Empiricists, including Rudolf Carnap, assert that it is not possible to strictly prove the truth of a hypothesis.
They emphasize that verification relies on empirical evidence rather than definitive proof.

Karl Popper criticizes Logical Empiricism, particularly focusing on the nature of probability in scientific assertions.
He argues that protocol statements cannot guarantee truth as they are subject to uncertainties and potential falsification.

Karl Popper evaluates induction skeptically, arguing that it is not a valid form of inference.
He contends that induction only allows for establishing high probability regarding predictions, suggesting effectively that “there is no induction.”

In Popper’s philosophy of science, the phrase “a hypothesis has been corroborated” indicates that a hypothesis has survived rigorous testing and scrutiny, but it is not necessarily proven true.

Popper proposes deductive testing of theories as a method that contrasts with induction.
This method utilizes a structured logical inference where hypotheses lead to predictions; for example, the hypothesis “All basketball players can dunk” might lead to the testable prediction that “If a person is a basketball player, they should be able to perform a dunk.”

To falsify a given hypothesis, Popper outlines specific steps that must be followed.
Basic statements need to be clear and actionable, though he does not insist on the necessity of formulations like “There is…” in their construction, as clarity and testability take precedence.

Regarding Popper’s philosophy, the so-called “problem of the empirical basis” arises when questioning whether a basic statement can be conclusively proven true.
If it cannot be proven, it remains possible to consider whether the statement can be falsified; if a basic statement is falsifiable, it implies that the hypothesis itself could also undergo further scrutiny.

Popper argues that it is necessary to come to a consensus on certain sentences regarded as “basic statements.”
He stresses that this is essential because it allows the scientific community to maintain a framework of objective, inter-subjectively testable statements that form the basis of empirical inquiry.