## Neopositivism ### ..and Perception Theory :eyes: <!-- Put the link to this slide here so people can follow --> **Rizqy Amelia Zein** Department of Personality and Social Psychology slide: https://hackmd.io/@ameliazein/neopositivism ---  To download the slides (.pdf), swipe down and click :printer: icon. --- ## Remember..:exclamation: <div style="text-align: left"> ..as a "temper of mind", *positivism* was "suspicious of theological and metaphysical doctrines as ==covert attempts== to vindicate things as they are" --Frankel (1965) </div>  --- ## The Failure of Newtonian Mechanics :lightning_cloud: <div style="text-align: left"> * Assuming that all changes in nature should have sufficient causes, but.. * A specific phenomenon may have a tons of different causes * ..and scientists are having a hard time to determine which causes what * Science is a neverending journey to search for the final cause -- doesn't sound like a fun aim :confused: </div> --- ## Historically.. :scroll: <div style="text-align: left"> * Newtonian mechanics had broken down in the decade of 1870s * It was when ["the Vienna circle"](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vienna-circle/) proposed the idea to rejuvenate Berkeley's and Hume's empiricism to a new approach that they called.. * ..Neopositivism </div> --- ## Central notions :earth_asia: <div style="text-align: left"> * Phenomenalism :arrow_right: a complete rejection of [*trancendental idealism*](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/) * ..no such thing as *things-in-itself* (*das ding an sich*) * Metaphysical speculation should be abandoned, assuming our observation is a pure experience * Therefore, [***Humean skepticism***](https://www.iep.utm.edu/hume/#H4) is the safest route to comperehend reality </div> --- "We could only observe a sequence of events, as causal relationship between events cannot be directly observed"  --- ## The logic :one: <div style="text-align: left"> * Championing *phenomenalism* as a theory of perception by undermining [*representationalism*](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-representational/) - The idea that outer physical world affects how we perceive it by sending "insensible particles" through our senses - Therefore, our mind is terribly passive "..what it perceives, it cannot avoid perceving.." (Locke, 1690) - But, greater activism leads to subjectivity :-1: </div> --- ## The logic :two: <div style="text-align: left"> * Then how to resolve this? [Moritz Schlick](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schlick/) said.. - "..it is not to ask questions about the reality, but only what it means to say that it is real.." * Then what does "real" mean in Neopositivism sense? - What "real" determined by "==**the given**==, and by nothing else" * Damn it, what does THAT actually mean? :confused: </div> --- ## The logic :three: <div style="text-align: left"> * Imagine that you're trying to make sense of your world by proposing a theory.. - "Colourful mushrooms are often poisonous" * This theory isn't just *methaporical* and would mean something ***if*** it is supported by the data (observation) - Extracting various colourful mushrooms to detect poisonous compounds </div> --- ## In short.. :flashlight: <div style="text-align: left"> * "...It is then mandatory to reduce *theoretical terms* into *observational terms* by applying *correspondence rules*... * Your theory would make sense ***if only*** it corresponds to reality :arrow_right: the importance of *verification* </div> --- ## But.. :face_with_finger_covering_closed_lips: <div style="text-align: left"> * If so, would you rather say that anything unobservable (such as metaphysics & ontology) is unreal? * The problem with verification :arrow_right: How would you make sure that your observation is universally correct? - How sure are you that ==your next observation== would come into the exact conclusion as ==your previous observation==? </div> --- ## Critics :anguished: <div style="text-align: left"> * None of those questions could be answered by Neopositivists * Beware of the danger of *solipsism* :arrow_right: Neopositivism fell into the hole it wanted to avoid in the first place.. :confused: </div> --- ### Hume was right :+1: <div style="text-align: left"> "If all that I can know is my sense impressions, then I cannot know what causes those sense impressions. At the very best, I can act "as if" they were caused by real objects and shared with real people" </div>  --- ### Thank you! :tada: You can find me on: - [My personal website](https://rameliaz.github.io/) - [Twitter](https://twitter.com/ameliazein) - [..or email](mailto:amelia.zein@psikologi.unair.ac.id)