YEAR TWO: Logical Positivism, Von Hayek, Mises, etc

Here is a link to my notes for the extra lecture on Vienna Circle given yesterday. This was just a 'warm up' for the session on Hayek next week. You will not be examined on the content of this particular session.

LECTURE NOTES ON VIENNA CIRCLE

(You won't be examined on this - it was an extra session. You will only be examined on Hayek).

Meanwhile I found on You Tube this excellent short further exposition on Logical Positivism, which also (attempts and in my view fails) to refute the verification principle first from Popper flasification position and then from a sort of re-assertion of good old Cartesian dualism (Swineburn's toys in the cupboard). Very clearly done however:



It is a bit difficult to get Logical Positivism without knowing a little bit about David Hume. We did not have a lecture on Hume, though he came up in a talk about empiricism I distinctly remember giving in 'People and Politics' about this time last year. I have since done a video lecture on Hume which is tailored to the needs of this course and to journalism. David Hume is often referred to as the greatest ever British philosopher and tends to be a hero of journalists beause of his super sceptical approach to any sort of truth claim.





Incidently I ran a test on the three leaders speeches in the general election debate at Birmingham University last night. It was round but I found that about 20 percent of Gordon Brown's 'speech acts' (Wittgenstein) were verfiable. Cameron was less that 5 percent; and only about one percent of Nick Clegg's "quacking" (George Orwell) had any verifiable meaning. Most of their "meaning" it seems to me was done with their hands and their body posture and things like nods and smiles. What does this prove? Well according to David Hume...

... absolutely nothing at all! But to me it proves that verifiable truth claims are unpopular with people, whereas pleasing fantasy and sonerous birdsong is more widely appreciated.

But I thinl a 'verfication meter' would be a good thing.

Can anyone do a quick package for the 'issues' pre-recorded packages for Thursday night analysisig the the debates for examples of verifiable truths vs non-verificable flim-flam? It wouldbe a clever piece to do and would be excellent on your blog - simiaor to when you did Orwellian analysis of adverts using bits of video under 'fair dealing' (commentary and review).