Logical Empiricism is a view of science that arose in the beginning of the twentieth
century in Europe and which was influential, especially in England and America, for most
of the century. It held that If one started with a firm
foundation of atomic propositions directly verified in observation, one could reach true
laws by combining these atomic propositions according to the rules of logic which
preserved truth. The edifice of scientific knowledge was to be built on the firm
foundations of observation according to the proven blueprints provided by logic.
The way this project was conceived can be elaborated by four theses which taken
together characterize the Logical Empiricist view: (following Brand Blanshard,
Reason and Analysis.)
1. Logical Atomism: This is the view that the structure of the world mirrors the
structure of our language or logic. Thus the scientific method based on logic would
reveal to us the logical structure of the world. Logic was seen as being characterized by:
(1) a set of atomic propositions which were independent of each other; and (2) logical
relations or connectives which determined the truth of complex statements from the truth
of the atomic statements they were built from. Thus, the world in order to mirror this
structure, must consist of atomic facts with only logical or formal relations.
2. Verifiability theory of meaning: The meaning of a proposition was seen as
being its method of verification in sense experience. Thus a direct link was made
between the atomic statements that formed the foundation of science and the bedrock of
experience. Science would be on firm ground as long as it restricted itself to atomic
statements that were directly verifiable in experience. Verifiability was also, perhaps
more fundamentally, a test for whether something had meaning or was merely nonsense
or tautologous. All meaningful statements had to be either tautologous or directly
verifiable in experience. (Sometimes falsifiability was used instead of verifiability as
this criterion.)
3. Analytic-Synthetic distinction: In order for the foundational method to work, a
clear distinction was needed between the fact and the logical rules that governed their
combinations. Analytic propositions are ones that are true or false simply in virtue of the
meanings of their terms. They don't have to be verified in experience. They correspond
to ways of combining atomic propositions that are guaranteed to be true. The
laws of logic are such propositions. You can test their truth by analysis of the meanings
of the terms involved. The subject already contains the predicate in its meaning.
Synthetic statements, however, are true or false in virtue of verification or falsification in
experience. They synthesize a subject and predicate that aren't already connected by
their meanings. Experience must make the connection. This clear distinction between the
foundations, the facts, and the rules of logic, which govern theory building, is necessary
for the system to work.
4. Emotivism: All propositions that do not meet the verification criterion of
meaning, and which aren't analytic, are not cognitively meaningful at all. They are
simple expressions of emotion. Art, Ethics, Religion, and metaphysics fall into this
category.
