Replace "mathematical" with "theological" and what happens to the ideas of the Vienna Circle?

[Boojatta]

In case you're wondering what the term "Vienna Circle" refers to, it included Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap, Hans Hahn, etc. That's not an explanation, but if you do some research, then you will be able to confirm that there's no misunderstanding about what is meant by "the Vienna Circle."

[Taverner]

1. Not really getting your point

The Vienna Circle cut through the bullshit, and established a measure that doesn't involve the woo woo element

[Boojatta]

2. The alternate universe Vienna Circle might say such things as ...

The fundamental doctrines of theology are implicit definitions of the theological words in them. Thus, they are statements that must be accepted, and cannot be intelligently criticized or doubted.

The concept "truth" is fuzzy nonsense. You can check that some reasoning based on the fundamental doctrines of theology is valid reasoning. You cannot revise the fundamental doctrines. They are the starting point for any legitimate argument in theology.

Theology has axioms, and the axioms are neither true nor false. If you have heretical attitudes and speak of an axiom of theology as being "false", then you are displaying your ignorance. Even conformists who speak of an axiom of theology as being "true" are technically making a mistake, but of course we don't need to insult them.

[skepticscott]

5. This is not even remotely an accurate parallel

with mathematics. So what again is the point here?

[Boojatta]

8. It's not intended to be a parallel.

It's intended to be a strategy. You can forecast that the strategy will fail, but you are fallible. So your forecast is not necessarily reliable.

[humblebum]

3. The hallmark of the Vienna Circle was the dissemination of Logical Positivism,

which was the basis for the modern scientific method.

[Boojatta]

4. What sense of the word "basis" are you using?

You used the past tense: "was the basis." Does Logical Positivism continue to be the one and only basis of the method that you consider to be both "scientific" and "modern"?

If a theory gets the label "scientific", then does it follow that it was created by means of a scientific method?

Like the word "there", the word "modern" doesn't mean anything without context. It seems to be an attempt to replace a description of substantive changes with a mere reference to time, so it relies upon some knowledge, but leaves much unspecified. The range of knowledge, the depth of knowledge, and the relative importance attached to the various parts of the knowledge are unspecified. The phrases "music of the 1920s" and "music of the 1960s" may conjure up distinct ideas to you, but to people in the year 2311 they might not conjure up much. After all, do you have an intuitive grasp of a contrast between music of the 1620s and music of the 1660s?

[humblebum]

6. Yes, no, and sometimes maybe. nt

[edhopper]

7. Replace chocolate and butter

with a beef roast and red wine and what happens to a chocolate pound cake?

[Boojatta]

9. Would you like that to be interpreted figuratively or literally?

Figuratively, I see you as hinting that a strategy of applying a major transformation is not interesting to you because any desired outcome can be obtained by applying a sufficiently large transformation. However, can you say anything about where is the official authorized boundary between orthodox transformation sizes and heretical transformation sizes?

To many ordinary people, it may seem far-fetched to make an analogy between what appears to be an increase in gravity resulting from being in an elevator accelerating upward, and an actual increase in gravity. For a long time, physicists thought that those merely feel similar, but that they're completely different and unrelated physical phenomena.

However, that analogy was the key to explaining why the motion of the planet Mercury deviates from what Newtonian physics predicted. Also, during eclipses, it's possible to do a fairly direct experimental verification that a light ray bends as it passes near a star.

What do you think about Popper's idea that what makes a proposal scientific isn't that it's necessarily true, but that it's in principle possible to show that it's false? At least one person has already claimed that the Original Post of this thread puts forward a faulty idea. You seem to be claiming that the idea is meaningless. However, isn't there a conflict of opinion there? Can something be both false and meaningless?

[edhopper]

10. I prefer Kuhn to Popper

Though both make valid points. Neither is definitive.

As an atheist I see any talk about theology, other than from an anthropological or sociological viewpoint, as nothing more than counting angels on a pin.
So to equate or transfer mathematical discussion to a theological one is irrational.
Hence my analogy of changing something so much that there is little resemblance.

To me it's similar to the creationist using scientific language to support their voodoo.

[Boojatta]

11. Kick

[Boojatta]

12. Kick

[Jim__]

13. Can you provide a list of the ideas that you're interested in? - n/t