Where Are the Logical Positivists When You Need Them?

I am sitting here flipping back and forth between CNN and MSNBC and trying to figure out whose political talking heads sound more absurd.  It must be a tie.  There is no dissemination of information, just pure entertainment.  I would love to stick A.J. Ayers in the studio:

We say that a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if and only if, [she or] he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express—that is, if [she or] he knows what observations would lead [her or] him, under certain conditions, to accept the proposition as being true, or reject it as being false. [From Language, Truth, and Logic (1936)]

Comments

[Brooks Simpson]

As an experienced talking head, I believe it is essential for one to gain the skill of saying the completely and utterly obvious in a moving and profound way.

So say this with as much meaning as you can:

"It was all up to Chamberlain now. The fate of the battle -- and perhaps the Union -- depended on him. What was he to do? Withdraw? Stand and fight? Or ... attack?"

[matthew mckeon]

Brooks,

I kept hearing the voice of William Shatner as I read your post.

[Tim Lacy]

Kevin,

But then our candidates wouldn't be able to talk about God and theology? Oh. Maybe that's your point?!

- TL

[Kevin Levin]

Hey Tim, -- Actually, I think the religious language comes closer to the epistemic demands of the positivists compared with the political commentators. (LOL)