Decades of positivist-bashing in academia, as exciting as it was, led to the absurdities we see today in both academia and society. Today, "positivist" has become a slur in social science.
As a long standing enthusiast for Carnap I'm pleased to see someone speaking up for positivism, but I think the idea that our present ailments are attributable to the demise of positivism underestimates the power of Hegelian and Marxist ideology which will not be thwarted by a resurgence of positivism. James Lindsay's analysis (new discourses) is more persuasive.
The Hegelian philosophy line (the one that gave philosophy a bad name) seems to be at odds with the half-decent philosophy that aligned itself with measurement and testability. Indeed, you may find Hegel's move into the metaphysical of the spirit, and the popularity of Hegel, the time wasted by Hegel, were all motivation for the positivist branch. I would predict many of the Vienna circle critqued Hegel. Indeed, those affected by the Vienna Circle also critiqued Marx, such as Hayek, Popper, and the brother of Richard von Mises who was the founder of Austrian economics: Ludwig.
So the Lenin-Marxists were already at odds with the Vienna Circle right from the beginning. To the credit of those influenced by the Vienna Circle, many seemed to recognize Fascism as a non-scientific doctrine early as well.
But as an insider in academia, I am passing on the information that the criticism on science in the softer social sciences and some captured humanities departments that can be heard in 2020s academia is an attack on "positivism." This is precisely how it is phrased. It is precisely these subjects that promoted and spread absurdities as well.
I find attacks on positivism and postmodernism alike often lack a meta analysis of the approaches, which naturally arises as a thing to do if you are familiar with both.
Both Carnap and Marx built on a tradition combining science and socialism. They bear flaws in common too, such as a tendency towards scientism and a partial understanding of the social functions of religion. 20th century postmodernists kind of bring the opposite vibe, with important lessons of considering sign and symbol marred by overly critical views of anything aiming for objectivity.
If we look at these traditions from an evolutionary and functional perspective, they are serving quite different purposes and people and observe their historical moments - with Marx turning Darwinist ideas to describe issues and propose solutions in a newly industrialised society, Carnap modernising these views from a scientific academic standpoint at a time where society's poor grasp of its new creations created great violence, then Derrida et al arising at a time where economic activity was increasingly taking symbolic form (with a background of post industrial malaise).
Looking at the modern day and what you call grievance studies, it's important to look back on why those traditions emerged and what they achieved. Decolonialisation, democratic enfranchisement and sexual equality are movements I feel I don't need to provide a moral defence for - and again we can point to their historical/technological moment as one where the globe was increasingly connected and the labour value of individuals increased in ways more neutral to sex, race and place than in the past.
My own personal theory of the anti-positivist fields you mention, and their questionable effectiveness, is that they are homes for constituencies neglected in the economic order using lessons of postmodernist symbolism to generate symbols to effect political change. In some ways this is similar to what Marx was doing with his class analysis back in the 19th century, except modern society is a lot more atomised and diverse now, leading to high dimensional analyses instead of singular class ones (hence intersectionality).
So, very different traditions with different functions and constituencies where an "x is better than y view" is quite limiting for us.
I feel any good positivist or scientifically minded person needs a good dose of humility on what can be achieved with the scientific method and where it is insufficient to meet our needs. The current day teaches us that the academic scientific establishment and its worldview is a political lightweight at times and could do with some allies.
P.s. Carnap’s thoughts on quantum mechanics are an interesting case of a man struggling to reconcile his worldview with the knowledge that one can't create order, make measurements and fashion predictions for everything. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.09037
As a long standing enthusiast for Carnap I'm pleased to see someone speaking up for positivism, but I think the idea that our present ailments are attributable to the demise of positivism underestimates the power of Hegelian and Marxist ideology which will not be thwarted by a resurgence of positivism. James Lindsay's analysis (new discourses) is more persuasive.
The Hegelian philosophy line (the one that gave philosophy a bad name) seems to be at odds with the half-decent philosophy that aligned itself with measurement and testability. Indeed, you may find Hegel's move into the metaphysical of the spirit, and the popularity of Hegel, the time wasted by Hegel, were all motivation for the positivist branch. I would predict many of the Vienna circle critqued Hegel. Indeed, those affected by the Vienna Circle also critiqued Marx, such as Hayek, Popper, and the brother of Richard von Mises who was the founder of Austrian economics: Ludwig.
Lenin in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism_and_Empirio-criticism identified some in the positivists as rivals, such as Philipp Frank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Frank
So the Lenin-Marxists were already at odds with the Vienna Circle right from the beginning. To the credit of those influenced by the Vienna Circle, many seemed to recognize Fascism as a non-scientific doctrine early as well.
But as an insider in academia, I am passing on the information that the criticism on science in the softer social sciences and some captured humanities departments that can be heard in 2020s academia is an attack on "positivism." This is precisely how it is phrased. It is precisely these subjects that promoted and spread absurdities as well.
Fascinating but incomprehensible (to me). Can't say I'm persuaded, l'll acquiesce in ignorance.
I find attacks on positivism and postmodernism alike often lack a meta analysis of the approaches, which naturally arises as a thing to do if you are familiar with both.
Both Carnap and Marx built on a tradition combining science and socialism. They bear flaws in common too, such as a tendency towards scientism and a partial understanding of the social functions of religion. 20th century postmodernists kind of bring the opposite vibe, with important lessons of considering sign and symbol marred by overly critical views of anything aiming for objectivity.
If we look at these traditions from an evolutionary and functional perspective, they are serving quite different purposes and people and observe their historical moments - with Marx turning Darwinist ideas to describe issues and propose solutions in a newly industrialised society, Carnap modernising these views from a scientific academic standpoint at a time where society's poor grasp of its new creations created great violence, then Derrida et al arising at a time where economic activity was increasingly taking symbolic form (with a background of post industrial malaise).
Looking at the modern day and what you call grievance studies, it's important to look back on why those traditions emerged and what they achieved. Decolonialisation, democratic enfranchisement and sexual equality are movements I feel I don't need to provide a moral defence for - and again we can point to their historical/technological moment as one where the globe was increasingly connected and the labour value of individuals increased in ways more neutral to sex, race and place than in the past.
My own personal theory of the anti-positivist fields you mention, and their questionable effectiveness, is that they are homes for constituencies neglected in the economic order using lessons of postmodernist symbolism to generate symbols to effect political change. In some ways this is similar to what Marx was doing with his class analysis back in the 19th century, except modern society is a lot more atomised and diverse now, leading to high dimensional analyses instead of singular class ones (hence intersectionality).
So, very different traditions with different functions and constituencies where an "x is better than y view" is quite limiting for us.
I feel any good positivist or scientifically minded person needs a good dose of humility on what can be achieved with the scientific method and where it is insufficient to meet our needs. The current day teaches us that the academic scientific establishment and its worldview is a political lightweight at times and could do with some allies.
P.s. Carnap’s thoughts on quantum mechanics are an interesting case of a man struggling to reconcile his worldview with the knowledge that one can't create order, make measurements and fashion predictions for everything. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.09037
Interesting, thanks for commenting.