Continually snide and rude would describe us both.

Peace.

You really can’t read, can you. In my preceding comment, I stated clearly:

All you did was assert that “Two Dogmas” broke the distinction between epistemology and metaphysics… I counter your assertion with an argument, explaining how Quine’s “Two Dogmas” is not an assault on positivism, because (a) it doesn’t attack uniquely positivistic viewpoints, and (b) it takes up positions that had already been taken up by other positivists.

Then I quote my sketch that explains points (a) and (b) within the framework of Quine’s “Two Dogmas” essay. I couldn’t be more clear that this is an answer to your argument that Quine killed positivism.

My argument that Quine is a positivist is a separate argument against your assertion that Quine killed positivism. Not only have you failed to answer either of these, but you don’t seem smart enough to keep them straight.

tiredmormon: We have both read the Leiter argument, why should I re-hash it?

Somebody has to re-hash his arguments in order to frame objections to them. If you want to enter his arguments into this thread in defense of your position, then you’re the one obliged to do it. All you’ve done is point to someone else’s essay and say, “Here, answer this,” which does not demonstrate the even slightest grasp on the material. Then you beat your chest about how you can show me up, when all you’ve done is link to someone else’s essay.

I repeat: You have yet to offer a meaningful objection to my arguments. You can’t just point to other people in the hope that I can’t answer their arguments. That’s what PPP says earn you a grade of “F”. You need to say something like, “What do you make of Leiter’s argument that Quine killed positivism by doing such and such? ” Then we have something to talk about.

tiredmormon: …I have seriously said that a million times.

For someone who is so continually snide and rude and incapable of demonstrating a thorough grasp of even the simplest reading material, you sure get indignant when you feel that someone else has misread you.

DKL, your little sketch is cute, but doesn’t cut the mustard. You said Quine reinforced positivism. Your argument does not address that issue. BACK THAT STATEMENT UP. I have asked for that about 10 times now. Think you can do it?

We have both read the Leiter argument, why should I re-hash it? Go ahead and read it again and share your thoughts. I brought it up because it supported my position. If you want to critique it, be my guest.

PPP, I don’t care what DKL is or does, this is about positivism. I have seriously said that a million times.

I did read the “argument” outlined above and, as DKL pointed out several times, you still haven’t put forth much more than opinions. You offer no explanation for why you believe positivism is dead other than to say Quine killed it. This is a statement, not support for your belief. And the “article” for which you provided a link provides no references for its own assertions and doesn’t even show an author. This is hardly a certifiable source.

So I’ll pose some questions for you to answer:
1) Why do you believe positivism dead?
2) Why do you assert that Quine killed positivism?
3) What other legitimate scholars in the field support your assertion? (Merely stating that “some very prominent philosophers” support your position is not adequate. If they’re prominent, who are they and where are your citations?)

I’m not a scholar in this field but if I was grading your “argument” in a college level course (the level of classes I currently teach) based on the presentation of evidence alone, you would garnish a failing grade. I honestly don’t even really care about your answers to the above questions but if you can’t answer them fully and concisely, you really don’t have much of a supportive argument.

One question I do actually care about is this: Why do you care if DKL is a logical positivist or not? It really seems to be bothering you for some unknown reason.

All you did was assert that “Two Dogmas” broke the distinction between epistemology and metaphysics. That’s not an argument. It’s an assertion. I counter your assertion with an argument, explaining how Quine’s “Two Dogmas” is not an assault on positivism, because (a) it doesn’t attack uniquely positivistic viewpoints, and (b) it takes up positions that had already been taken up by other positivists.

The distinction between scientific and metaphysical inquiries was based on the theory of verification. Quine’s attack on the analytic/synthetic distinction and reductionism constitutes a full-frontal assault on atomism and meaning determinism, both of which had already been jettisoned by other positivists for different reasons. Furthermore, both of these tenets originated outside of positivism and had many adherents outside of positivism. In other words, there is nothing essentially positivist about the analytic/synthetic distinction and reductionism. That was the point; he went after two major tenets that were common within several schools of philosophy. If his essay had simply been a critique of positivism, it wouldn’t have made nearly the splash.

Quine’s attack on reductionism impacts only the most naive formulations of the theory of verification (and Quine knew this). Early formulations (starting with “the meaning of a statement is its method of verification” and quickly moving to “a sentence is meaningful if and only if it verifiable” in response to Russell’s early criticisms) were abandoned by the Vienna positivists in the early 1930s. Generally, they adapted a more liberal position that required some degree of confirmation or disconfirmation as a necessary (and usually a sufficient) condition for meaning. For my part, I formulate the principle as follows: “A statement is meaningful if and only if evidence can be adduced for or against it.” (This is akin to Reichenbach’s probability principle, though it is stripped, of course, of his frequency interpretation of probability.) There is room to dispute what constitutes evidence for or against a statement, but there’s nothing in Quine’s system that problematizes that formulation as such.

Instead of offering a counter argument by attacking my interpretation of Quine, you name an essay by some philosopher from Texas. You haven’t cited Quine once. You haven’t even sited an essay once. You named two essays. I’m the one who cited Quine. I’m the one who actually described his approach and arguments (albeit briefly) in an essay that you do nothing more than name.

You want to make this into an exchange of authorities who agree with our positions and then pretend that it’s an argument. If you want to make it an argument, then make an argument.

Here’s what you need to do (I’ve said this so frequently that I’m frankly embarrassed for you): Take the top arguments from the Leiter essay that you find persuasive, and recapitulate them here. That will give me something to argue with. Beware: if you actually win this argument using this technique that I’ve repeatedly recommended, then you will owe me big time.

I have this problem all the time. I could take advantage of people like you and wipe the floor with them. Instead, I decide to be nice and try to help them by explaining how to actually advance a productive argument. Invariably, someone who is too stupid to formulate a reasonable argument is too stupid to appreciate the helping hand that I’m trying to give them, and they rail against me for trying to help them instead of taking advantage of their ignorance.

Lastly, I haven’t dismissed a single point that you’ve made by calling it stupid. On the contrary, I’ve concluded that you’re arguments or opinions are stupid based on analysis. So that I answer your assertions and then draw the conclusion that they are of a very low quality. You’re the one who has repeatedly dismissed my opinions without further analysis by simply name calling, so that instead of answering my points (e.g., my point-by-point refutations) you simply dismiss them with ad hominem attacks. I conclude that you’re a moron.

Quine was not a positivist BECAUSE he broke the arbitrary distinction between epis and mp, arguing that metaphysical knowledge is verifiable. That is why he killed positivism. It is as simple as that. You can read about it in his book, cited above. You can read about it in Leiter’s paper (not just “some” philosopher, check his CV), cited above. It’s not complicated.

You claim Q reinforced the barrier instead of breaking it – but DKL, you have to do more than just say it to carry the point. Tell me HOW he reinforced it, cite his works, and cite a philosopher who agrees with you. DO SOMETHING. Just blurting that out will not carry the debate, you have to back it up, and you have not.

I can’t respond until you do something with your bald assertion. Can you cover your butt here?

And your little point-by-point refutations are petty, at best.