L.O. 4.

2 Positivism and Empiricism

We usually take the philosophical views of Ancient Greek and western

philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle to the way we think about
knowledge and its applications in our daily life.

They imparted to us the philosophy of positivism and empiricism. Positivism

and empiricism help us to get essentially the truth and knowledge in dealing
with something that we do not know and wanted to know and solve.

Positivism essentially involves adopting a stance where valid knowledge, or

“truth”. It is based on systematic scientific evidence and proof: in order to be
positive about knowing something, that something must be proven through
scientific evidence.

Empiricism is about proven knowledge, but contends that proof also may
come through the application of logic or through direct observable evidence.

Things to Remember:

Positivism is the perspective in the philosophy of science which is premised

on a belief that a scientific approach is the only base of knowledge.

The postulates of positivism refer to the following three domains:

1. Similar classes of phenomena exhibiting same properties;

2. The absence of or slow rate of change of phenomena; and
3. Orderliness, regularity and constancy in nature, especially relating to
cause-effect relationships. Like positivists also reject metaphysical
speculation as a source of knowledge, and attempt to reduce all statements
and propositions derived from data to pure logic.

Empiricism is about proven knowledge, but contends that proof also may
come through the application of logic or through direct observable evidence.

INFORMATION SHEET L.O.4.1

POSITIVISM AND EMPIRICISM

Positivism

Positivism is the perspective in the philosophy of science which is premised on a belief

that a scientific approach is the only base of knowledge. It holds that only that
constitutes authentic knowledge which is based on sensory experiences and verification.
Such experiences can be gained by observation and experimentation enhanced by the
use of tools which enhance our sensory experiences.

Postulates of Positivism
The postulates of positivism refer to the following three domains:

1. Similar classes of phenomena exhibiting same properties;

2. The absence of or slow rate of change of phenomena; and
3. Orderliness, regularity and constancy in nature, especially relating to cause-effect
relationships. Like positivists also reject metaphysical speculation as a source of
knowledge, and attempt to reduce all statements and propositions derived from data to
pure logic.

Perspectives of Philosophical Positivists

Philosophical Positivists Perspective/s

1. Thomas Kuhn Positivism has been subjected to criticism by those
scientists and scholars who give importance to the
role of interpretation, who deny simplistic cause-
effect relationships to explain phenomena, and who
believe that all phenomena cannot be subjected to
observation and measurement in the same precise
way, or in the same degree of accuracy. Observer
bias and errors induced due to values, subjectivity,
diversity in human behavior are all seen as factors
that can affect the quality of quantitative research
methods. Human ability to uncover truth or reality
with certainty is questioned. Different kinds of
dualism such as subject-object, truth and non-truth,
cause-effect, fact-interpretation, facts-theory,
quantitative-qualitative etc. that are an integral
aspect of positivist methods are also critiqued
(Reading material on Thomas Kuhn).
2. Paul Lazarsfeld To develop quantitative research techniques by
incorporating such criticisms has also been
adversely commented upon as “abstract empiricism
as it has created false impressions of quantitative
techniques as being objective, and not adequately
informed by theory and context. Other critics of
empiricism argue that observation and experiment
based measurements alone never be a sufficient
basis for the construction of generalizations, laws
and principles, while yet others disapprove of the
very tendency to generalize and create laws
especially in areas where natural sciences,
engineering, and social sciences intersect to a much
greater degree.

The perspectives of these scholars and critics to

philosophical approaches to science, methodology,
and scientific method have played a very important
 role both in facilitating “better” methods of research,
and in helping us understand the utility and
effectiveness of research tools, concepts, and
theories.
3. Karl Popper He developed the idea of falsification. In criticizing
logical-positivists, he rejected the verifiability of
theories and hypothesis, and asserted that theories
can only be falsified. Instead of scientific knowledge
being discovered and verified by way of inductive
generalizations. He showed that science advances
by deductive falsification through a process of “
conjectures and refutations”. Hypotheses and
theories are conjectures about the world that are
usually tentative, and can be disproved through
refutations. Among other developments, this notion
led to the evolution of popular methods of
hypothesis testing., popular modes of formatting a
hypothesis, especially the notion of null hypothesis.
Theories and branches of knowledge which can be
expressed in specific forms amenable to falsification
have the status of science which are distinct from
non-science. Those theories that survive attempts at
falsification are corroborated and accepted so long
as they are not falsified.

According to this perspective imagination and

creativity generates knowledge and theories, not
induction based on verifiable propositions.
Methodological questions should be guided by this
principle.
4. Paul Feyerabend The idea that methodological discussions cannot be
subjected to ‘scientific reason’, and that
methodology is not a normative discipline has been
pushed to a much greater extent by Feyerabend
than other contributors to philosophy of science.
Through an exhaustive research of hundreds of
scientific projects and process of inventions and
discoveries, Feyerabend rejected the notion that the
choice of method using scientific criteria plays an
important role in success and effectiveness of
research. He showed that there are no standardized
methodological rules or guidelines that were always
used by scientists in their research. Arguing for
Methodological individualism/pluralism in his work
“Against Method”, he stated that any prescriptions
regarding methodology would tend to limit the
activists of researchers, and thus result in restricting
scientific progress. Instead he proposed theoretical
 anarchism, which according to him promotes
scientific activity that would be more humanitarian
way, allow for greater creativity and rejects
imposition of authoritarian perspectives and views.
Freedom in society and for scientists would make it
possible to for researchers to have a more
subjective understanding of both natural and social
phenomena, of human beings and natural entities,
and thereby avoid the pitfalls of an objective’
approach which by being insensitive and
unsympathetic can cause harm to humans, society
and environment.

Empiricism

Scientific evidence, developed through positivism lens, results from a national, logically
planned process identified as the scientific process.

Similar to positivism, empiricism is about proven knowledge, but contends that proof also
may come through the application of logic or through direct observable evidence. Much
of what is taught in the United Stated about knowledge and epistemology is somewhat
constrained by traditions of western philosophy. Challenges to these constraints
emerged in the literature during the 1990’s under the headings of naturalistic
epistemology, and ethnoepistemology (e.g., Maffie, 1990: 1995). An important
contribution to our understanding of knowledge is an anthropological appreciation that
knowledge is constructed within a cultural context. This is quite different from the
positivist perspective concerning single, provable truths that are waiting to be
discovered. In other words, what we know, how we come to know it, and how we think
about knowing all are influenced by the personal, historical, and cultural contexts
surrounding experiences. For example, consider what you “know” about deafness as
disability. This deficiency perspective comes from the cultural context of having lived in a
hearing world. However, members of the Deaf community offer a different perspective:
living within deaf culture and linguistic structures (i.e., using sign language to
communicate) conveys specific social and cultural implications for human development,
behavior, thinking and worldview (Jones, 2002). These implications are viewed the same
way other cultures are viewed-as cultural differences when being compared, not as
deficiencies, or “otherness”. This diversity of experience perspective (rather than
disability perspective) could be applied to other topics, such as autism, reflecting human
neurodiversity rather than disorder.