Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label positivism

Positivism and Realism

In the philosophy of law, "positivism" generally stands for the view that the law is the will of the state, as expressed in legislation understood as a natural, historical fact. It is antithetical to any theory that posits "natural law," a Way Things Ought to Be to which those legislators must respond at the cost otherwise of losing their own legitimacy. Also in the philosophy of law, "realism" stands for the view that there are no formal and direct inferences from rules of law to applications -- from what the legislators do to what the judges do -- or from precedents sent down from the appellate court up high to the decisions of the ground-level trial courts. Realism is a critique of formalism. Positivism and realism as so defined are neither at odds nor allied. They don't address the same questions, they do not share the same foes (natural law theory is not identical to formalism). Historically, though, representatives of positivism and realism...

David Stove

An enjoyable takedown of Stove, which acknowledges his strengths. Yes, it's 11 years old. I've just come across it. It appears that the author planned to make this a part one, but I haven't found any follow-through. Still, he states his essential point. http://maverickphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/11/david-stove-anti-philosopher.html All that said, Stove did state a view of the problem of induction that I find of interest. Suppose the size of the universe of swans is known. There are exactly 100 swans in the world. I haven't seen all of them, and I wonder about the truth of the statement "all swans are white." Stove's point, if I understand him, is simply that the process called induction is simply a matter of getting closer to completeness. If I have seen twenty swans, and all are white, then the proposition in question is true of 20% of the universe of swans. If I see 10 more and the generalization holds, then it is true of 30% of that universe...