If you call yourself logical, you might be just the opposite

If you find yourself in a meeting, dinner party, or parent-teacher conference skeptical of someone’s claims because they don’t have the correct “proof”, you might be erroneously subscribing to a movement in philosophy called logical positivism. This way of thinking, despite relying either on direct observation or deductive reasoning to prove all claims, can cause you to look foolish instead of “logical.”

What is logical positivism?

Physicists and mathematicians founded this movement called “logical positivism” in the early 1920s. It peaked in popularity in the 1950s, and ultimately began to wane in 1970s but tenants of the logical positivist mindset still exist in discourse to this day.

As it was founded by men of science, logical positivism was all about scientific inquiry, even in philosophy, where it was most prominently found. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines logical positivism as all knowledge that rests “upon public experimental verification or confirmation rather than upon personal experience.”

It was produced in response to the metaphysics movement – names like Kant, Mill, or Comte – who talked at length about the “great unanswerable questions” of existence, meaning, and substance. To logical positivists, the naval-gazing was getting unbearable, and the only true determiner as to whether or not these ridiculous claims could be verified was testable, observable science.

The logical positivists were against something called synthetic a priori propositions – “synthetic” meaning made-up, “a priori” meaning deduced from prior observation. An example of this would be that because you see multiple younger team members continually express phobia about making phone calls, you would then assume that all younger people have a phobia of phone calls.

Philosophy Basics explains that the logical positivists, instead, posed that analytic statements, “which are true simply by virtue of their meanings,” are much more appropriate ways in which to craft these observations. For instance, one could say that younger people haven’t lived as long as you have. That example might seem silly, but the definition of the thing begs the answer, which makes it logical. Everything else is essentially just opinion.

What’s the problem here?

Logical positivism sounds fine on the surface, but it gets tricky once this idea is scaled out, and used in real conversation. Imagine you’re in a meeting, talking about your new e-commerce platform, and you say, “I think we should use a different web host.” Your boss responds with the traditionally condescending, “well, that’s just your opinion – I’ve tested this web host, and because it has an e-commerce feature, that means that it’s built for e-commerce.”

Sure, you want to say, but I’ve been working in e-commerce for five years, and I’ve seen the problems with that web host. But it would fall on deaf ears.

Regretfully for you, and perhaps your company, it’s difficult to combat a logical positivist; if someone has it in their mind that their observational experience follows logic while another’s doesn’t, this seemingly straightforward way of thought can hit a snag.

“Critics have argued,” Philosophy Basics mentions, “that Logical Positivism’s insistence on the strict adoption of… non-analytic, meaningful sentences to be either verifiable or falsifiable is problematic, as the criterion itself is unverifiable.” This is especially the case for negative existential claims, such as “the potential for growth here doesn’t exist,” or positive universal claims, like “the opportunity for innovation is always there.”

A lot of the time, it’s easier not to think about these broad, sweeping statements, especially if they seem mind-numbingly corny, and it can feel impossible to argue with the person making them. It is their observation, after all, that feeds into their claims, but at the same time, they’re convinced it’s just your opinion that substantiates yours.

So how do I know what’s logical and what’s not?

After hearing that something titled “logical positivism” might not be so logical, you might be scratching your head. If verifiable observational claims can’t be trusted, and neither can unprovable, metaphysical claims, as those are just opinions, what can we trust?

The answer is somewhere in the middle, as any critical thinker will tell you. While many these days have a loose interpretation of the word “facts,” often, they do hold the answers to most questions of legitimacy. However, some of those facts might contradict pre-existing observed experiences you’ve had that influenced and cultivated your opinion about something.

Entrepreneur.com states that one of the biggest problems that make a smart person look dumb is their inability to admit when they’re wrong. “It’s hard for anyone,” they say, and “because they grow so used to being right all the time that it becomes a part of their identity. For smart people, being wrong can feel like a personal attack, and being right, a necessity.”Those who claim to be logical can often be smart, but stubborn, and being logical can sometimes be more about being right than being correct. That being said, more often than not, they can be swayed with proof, facts, and a compelling argument, one that comes off to them as more than just opinion.