I often read in philosophy books/booklets how the cause and effect model of logical positivism has been passed over for a contingency model. Furthermore, many philosophers seem convinced that logical positivism died out long ago. None the less, most science textbooks and social science research guildes text logical positivism as canon in the first chapter. So…
What is the deal with contingency?
Does contingency mean I can shoot pool with poolsharks and not worry about the odds being in their favor when making a bet (since there is not reason to believe his experience will be a cause of the effect of him winning)?
If logical positivism is so wrong, what is it scientist do in the labs that makes better medicine? Is is still science just not logical positivism?
Logical positivism was an attempt to eliminate metaphysics from philosophy. This was done by identifying two kinds of statements: necessary and contingent. Necessary statements are those that cannot be false: 2+2=4, etc. Contingent statements can be false: I am forty years old (well, I’m not, although I will be IF I don’t die first).
The logical positivist would then say that “A statement is meaningful if, and only if, it can be proven true or false by experience.” This means that all metaphysical statements are meaningless. Unfortunately, the postulates of logical positivism are also unverifiable, and therefore meaningless, and the whole thing comes crashing down. However, by accepting that knowledge is bounded by contingencies, and that even “logically necessary” statements are contingent in some way, one can embrace logic without going insane.
Logical positivism has very little to do with cause and effect, and its overthrow affects science not a whit. It is true that scientists have a soft spot for it, but that’s just because we hate unverifiable statements.