- #1
madness
- 815
- 70
Logical positivism states that empirical knowledge and a priori facts are the only meaningful ways to decide on the truth of a statement. If scientific induction is not a priori or empirical (it can't be empirical without using itself to prove its self), then doesn't this mean that a logical positivist could not claim to have any knowledge of anything that he has not directly observed already or considers an a priori fact? ie a logical positivist would have to say that "the sun will rise tomorrow" is a meaningless statement.