The problem of demarcation in modern science - страница 8
When we write an essay, the images we are using will be represented in red, the idea will be represented in green, and the idea of abstraction will be represented in blue. We can denote certain objects in orange, some blue, and so on, but on the way to represent these things will be different. We use this symbol to represent various ideas. This is how we conceptualize things, and since we conceptualize them, this is how we interpret them.
What we see is actually a series of real and imaginary things in a complex combination. The world is a complex system that is constantly changing, so the way we try to describe it is constantly changing. This is what I call the illusory universe.
So why don’t we just see the world as it really is? Well, because we can’t. We do not see it as it really is, and we cannot explain it in words. This is why we use words. This is how we represent what we see.
This is one of the important parts of my approach. I try to approach my topic from a different perspective. I look at this from the point of view of the idea of the object, not from the point of view of how it is actually seen. When my brain tries to explain it, I start looking at it from a different perspective. I’m starting to see this as a series of symbols.
How can this understanding be translated? What do we do when we see something we shouldn’t see? We must abstract ourselves from this. In other words, we move to another level and interpret the scene in terms of symbols. We use symbols to see things, but symbols are not what they actually appear.
We can see what we shouldn’t see, so we interpret the scene and explain it with symbols. To go one level higher, we use these symbols to abstract from the scene and explain it in terms of reality. This level of abstraction is what we have to do to make it easier to understand the world. This level of abstraction is what we have to do to simplify the explanation of the world. The point of this is to help us understand everything we have ever been taught and understand everything that is happening around us.
Logical positivism
Logical positivism, formulated in the 1920s, held that only statements about facts or logical relationships between concepts make sense. These statements are not called sentences, but are said to represent true beliefs.
It should be noted, however, that although «mereological» statements may be false, logical positivists also considered them factual, so the proper name for such statements is «perception».
Logical positivists believe that while such claims are possible, they must be false anyway.
Logical positivism originated in Hegelian philosophy, especially in his dialectics and its criticism. While making some dialectical criticism of determinism, determinism itself was not part of the Marxist analysis.
The philosopher Karl Popper proposed a synthesis of logical positivism, functionalism and socialism. Popper popularized the use of the term «positivism».
Logical positivism, formulated in the 1920s, argued that the truth of a statement is «whatever is consistent with observable facts.»
The concept of a truth principle in modern logic does not imply this – for example, the statement that «all numbers are rational» is not really a statement about what is true, but only about what can be proved.
Logical positivists also do not exclude so-called non-empirical statements.