Empiricism and Positivism are two schools important and significant philosophy. Accuracy in understanding and criticism of it will help understand it general global character of contemporary western philosophy.
Both of these streams gained popularity because of their success in justifying the natural science of getting rid of classical philosophy (metaphysics). For those interested in classical philosophy, and have an interest in defending in the field of contemporary issues, these two schools must be thoroughly peeled out. The following article will immediately focus on the pointer criticism.
Empiricism
Among the figures of empiricism are John Locke, and David Hume. They try to attribute all concepts and ideas to the senses.
Criticism of empiricism
1. Restrictions on instruments obtain knowledge as limited as sensors
2. The first knowledge of sense observation is simple knowledge, not deep knowledge
3. Damage to one of the senses can result in invalidation of the results of the perception
4. Empirical knowledge does not believe in causal law
5. Empirical knowledge can be obtained from the hidden deduction process, not the result of direct sense perception
6. Empirical knowledge is one knowledge, cannot understand one connection with another, or cannot take general law
7. The human senses have the same status as animals, even the senses of animals have more advantages like the sense of smell of dogs more sharply than humans,
8. Empirical knowledge is only one step, the second knowledge can draw conclusions from the first knowledge
9. Empirical knowledge occurs only for certain regions and times, cannot cover the past and the future
10. Employment of empirical knowledge such as camera work, taking pictures, but lacking understanding between images
11. Empirical knowledge, such as tabula rasa, has been given since childhood (innate), but this knowledge in Islam, such as tabula rasa, white paper and the human senses absorbs it with its soul, various forms of sensory images are nutrition for the soul
12. Induction in empiricism always leads to perfect and imperfect induction. Perfect induction will not occur, because it cannot cover past and future inductions. Perfect induction always ends with generalizations from limited empirical data
13. Restrictions on reality that can be perceived by the senses, even though many realities cannot be absorbed by the senses
Positivism, Metaphysics, Mathematics and Logic
Positivism is the most extreme form of empiricism. This flow limits the perception of experience only to sensuality. Positivism does not recognize inner experience as scientific knowledge. Universal ideas (metaphysics) are considered meaningless mental vocabulary. Only meaningful and scientific subjects can be perceived by the five senses.
Here are some critics for positivism regarding metaphysics;
1. Positivism considers knowledge to be scientific if it can be accessed proven by the senses. Thus the principle of knowledge hudhuri and propositions that prove to be intellectually collapsed.
2. The positivism closes the proof of the logic of the external world. Though sensory knowledge is the most fragile experience.
3. The assumption of the concepts of metaphysics has no meaning is to deny the principle of causality.
4. Positivism considers there cannot be a scientific law that is universal, permanent and necessary because it cannot be absolutely justified by the senses. Even though there is a gap in the senses. Thus if the senses are set as a standard, then if they cannot be experienced by the senses, their status cannot be denied and justified.
5. Positivism is forced to accept mathematical concepts by combining logic concepts, even though mathematical concepts have examples of the outside world (technical language of character and concept. This proves the positivity of the positivists.
6. The positivism considers the senses to be more important than the ratio, whereas the sensory function only gives information (tasawur) while the ratio gives the decision (tasdiq) by comparing with other concepts.
Positivism and Six Principles.
One of the major schools in the philosophy of social science is positivism. The root of positivism lies in the thoughts of Auguste Comte (Born January 19, 1798 – past 5 September 1857). August Comte believed that the scientific method was based on “observation”. He believes that this method is prevalent in the natural sciences and can be used in the humanities too.
The positivism is based on six principles.
Principle 1: The human mind is like a white plate.
Principle 2: Any knowledge can be assessed on the basis of experience.
Principle 3: What is not visible is outside the realm of science.
Principle 4: The scientific law is the expression of repetitive observations.
Principle 5: The explanation of a phenomenon is to show that this phenomenon is an instance of the law of science.
Principle 6: According to the law of science, one can predict.
In the following, we explain each of these principles in detail. Positivism can be divided into two periods: the elementary period and the later period. The first step in reaching scientific knowledge is observation. The primitive positivism was about the state of mind in the process of knowing that the mind has only the accepting role. In other words, the mind does not have any effect on cognition. In the camera, light is the only factor in creating the image, and the camera does not play a role in this process. From the point of view of positivism, all humans share this characteristic. Of course, people may find errors in accessing it, in other words.
Positivists make recommendations for avoiding mistakes. The explanation of this condition leads us to the second principle. Based on the second principle any knowledge can be assessed on the basis of experience. The starting point of experience is the observation. In each observation, the observer must have the correct means of observation. For example, his eyes, ears and other senses should be healthy.
Their purpose is to be healthy so that the five senses work as normal. So, just as the weakness of the five senses is problematic, the excessive strength of the five senses is also problematic. For example, someone with weak eyes is not suitable for empirical research, and one who has very strong eyes. But why have stronger eyes become problematic?. Because what these people get is not publicly visible and others can not confirm their observations.
Another condition for observing credit is that it avoids any preconception in its observation. In other words, the observer avoids interfering with any of his mental and emotional feelings in observation. Another condition for observing the validity is that the observer accurately records what he observes. It is only by observing these three conditions that the first step will be realized for the empirical method. We must also accept the third principle in accordance with the second principle.
According to the third principle given that the observation of the basis of any experience, whatever is not visible, it is beyond the scope of scientific research. According to Positivism, if something that is not achieved by unmoral senses is unacceptable, then something that is not attained by the five senses would be unreliable.
Upon the Principle 4, the scientific law is the expression of repetitive observations. What do the positivists have for justifying this principle? This principle is justified by the second step in the empirical method.
According to Positivism, observer should do induction after observation. But what is inductive and why it is used in an experimental way. The purpose of induction is to examine repetitive cases. The main purpose of induction is that the observer is not deceived by special features of observed things. When we observe repetitive instances and obtain a common characteristic, this feature can be extended to unobserved individuals.
Therefore, the fourth principle is not only justified, but also obligatory and necessary. But positivists have also been concerned with problems that may arise from induction. Hence, they have considered some conditions for validation of induction.
The first condition is that the number of observations must be very high. The second condition is that the observed cases must be in different situations and conditions. The third condition is that there would not be any observed counter example during the observation of numerous cases.
The Critique of positivism
Firts Critique
One of the criticisms of positivism is about the interpretation of the nature of “observation”. While most positivists consider “observation” to be absolute, the Critics believe that it is relative. Critics believe that the mind is not white tablet or as John Locke expressed “Tabula Rasa”. Everyone has subjective backgrounds. Various factors contribute to the formation of these mental backgrounds.
Some of these factors are: culture, environment, inheritance and so on. Cultures are different. While people in a culture respect the tradition of the ancients, in other culture, people do not pay attention to the tradition so much. It may be said that many people have a common culture. But it should be noted that people with common culture are environmentally different. For example, some people with a common culture may live in a desert setting while others live in the mountains. And as it has been claimed, living in desert causes rude in human’s behavior. It may be said that many people have a common culture as well as a common environment.
But it should be noted that people with common culture are with different inheritances. Even people with a common culture, environment, and inheritance have different psychological characteristics. Obviously, you cannot find any two persons with the same mental backgrounds. According to critics, the differences in the above-mentioned characteristics make a difference in observation and attitude. It may seem that one can achieve a set of the
same observations. But it should be noted that the observations of a person will change over time and with changing circumstances. So, on this basis, we will never be able to achieve a set of same observations.
Now what happens if the same observation cannot be achieved? Yes, we will not be able to achieve “scientific law”. This critique is named in terms of the “theory-laden” critique. N. R. Hanson used the term for the first time. But Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatosh have also accepted this critique.
Second Critique
Now let’s talk about the second critique. Based on the second critique, assuming that individuals can achieve the same observation, they will never be able to achieve from the same observations to the “scientific law”. Because what is obtained from the same observation is nothing but “imperfect induction”. The meaning of the “incomplete induction” is that “all things are not observed“. According to this critique, no matter how much a person attempts to expand the circle of induction, he is not able to observe all of the things that he wants to observe. Based on this critique, only “complete induction” can lead to scientific law.
This critique is known as the “problem of induction”. This critique is known as the “problem of induction” or “Hume’s Problem’s about induction”. If there is no scientific law, prediction will not be possible.
Third critique.
Now we are going to the third critique. Based on the third form, even if it is possible to achieve scientific law based on incomplete induction, this scientific law cannot be applied to human beings. Because there is a difference between the natural sciences on the one hand and the humanities on the other. Human beings have free will. On the basis of the free will of humans, one cannot predict in any way the behavior of a person in the future, upon what he has observed in the past.
References:
1. Roger Trigg, Understanding Social Science: Philosophical Introduction to the Social Sciences (Publisher: Wiley, 2000)
2. Ted Benton & Ian Craib, Philosophy of Social Science: The Philosophical
3. Falsafatuna, Bagir Ash-Sadr, Mizan, 2014
4. Philosopical Intruction; An Introduction to Contemporary Islamic Philosophy, Yazdi Misbah, Shadra Press, 2010
5. Masa’ale-ye Seynokh, Muthahari, Murtada, Shadra Press, 2010