Free Positivism Essays and Papers

Exploring Research Methodologies: Positivism and Interpretivism Before a researcher can initiate a research project, they face the confusion and the range of theoretical perspectives, methodologies, methods, and the philosophical basis that encompasses them all. This seemingly meticulous structure for the research process is in fact aimed toward providing the researcher with a ‘scaffolding’, or a direction which they can go on to develop themselves to coincide with their particular research purposes

In defence of the school of legal positivism Introduction Legal positivism is a legal philosophy or thought advocating for the written rules of law to be only the source of law. The implication hereof is that in the interpretation of any text of law recourse should be sought in the wording of that very same law or text to be interpreted. In our view, this is a sound philosophy because it promotes and maintains legal certainty by basing the interpretation of law on known and written rules, rather

law in Canada is most comparable with Legal Positivism. After analyzing the purpose of Legal Positivism, the similarities between it and Canada’s legal system become obvious. Both systems exercise the concept of primary and secondary rules, both contain a theory of legal obligation and lastly, both have a theory which answers for judicial interpretation. To understand the relationship between a system of government (such as Canada’s) and legal positivism, one must first understand the purpose of

alternative to positivism. The central claim of legal positivism states that "in any legal system, whether a given norm is legally valid, and hence whether it forms part of the law of that system, depends on its sources, not its merits". Dworkin completely rejects the positivist approach because he believes that "no combination of source-based rules, no matter how broadly construed or how carefully crafted can ground a theory of law". Dworkin is evidently making a big move away from positivism. The first

This paper will provide a critique of legal positivism through consideration of its origins, principle scholars, theoretical assumptions, limitations. It will include an example of relevancy through the complex and divisive issue of same-sex marriage. Legal positivism is a theory defined as, “a method of legal study that concentrates on the logical structure of law, the meanings and uses of its concepts, and the formal terms and the modes of its operation and that tries to understand the nature of

theories. One notable theory in this area is legal positivism, which is often subdivided into classical and modern positivism. These concepts shall be in explored in greater depth later but in sum, legal positivism refers to law as man-made and separate from the concept of morality. This essay shall explain and critically evaluate the main features of both forms of legal positivism. Following this, Ronald Dworkin’s concerns with legal positivism, particularly with the role of legal principles shall

differentiating the reality of the law from the normative or moral merit of law. This in sense is scientific approach because positivism is an empirical approach to philosophy, which extends it use to the scientific method and other fields. None the less my goal here is not to present an all-out account of Austin but to present a comprehensive evaluation of legal positivism and present the issues I have found prominent in legal validity, whether it be with Hart, Austin any other theorist. However

entrenches them is one of great controversy in the legal community. The legal theories of legal positivism and critical legal studies take particularly opposing analysis and views of the law, as well as how law impacts on society. In order to illustrate my answer, I will draw from the idea of the protection of private property, and the criminalization and subsequent decriminalization of homosexuality. Legal positivism is particularly concerned with the validity of the law, and believes law is valid so long

greater fairness and efficiency. On top of respecting these philosophies in their individual realms, we must also recognize how they coincide and what this convergence means to the way in which we live our lives. Works Cited Fuller, Lon L. Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law Review Association, 1958. Print. Hart, H. L. A. The Concept of Law. New York: Oxford UP, 1997. Print. Fuller, Lon L. The Case of the Speluncean Explorers. Cambridge

Ayer published Language, Truth & Logic in 1936 when he was only 26 years of age. He was a part of the Vienna Circle; who were notoriously known for their philosophy of logical positivism. Logical positivism is a philosophical theory that holds meaningful only those non-tautological propositions that can be analyzed by the tools of logic into elementary propositions or are empirically verifiable. It therefore rejects metaphysics, theology, and sometimes ethics as meaningless . In Language, Truth &

Introduction: In “Legal Positivism, Law’s Normativity, and the Normative Force of Legal Justification” by Torben Spaak, he argues that he prefers to have reasons for preferring legal positivist to natural law theory and he also bring ups the laws of normativity. I will argue against a key point in the laws of normativity, regarding legal rights and I will also argue against that we should prefer legal positivist to natural law. Summary: Spaak argues about how there are reasons for choosing legal

In 1936 Alfred Jules Ayer published a book named, Language, Truth, and Logic. At the time of its publication, it was understood to be the major thesis of Logical Positivism (Macdonald). In order to understand the Verification Principle, one must first become somewhat familiar with Logical Positivism. Logical Positivism is a school of philosophic thought that combines empiricism, the idea that observational evidence is indispensable for knowledge of the world, with a version of rationalism incorporating

basic differences between the two forms of research? Hoepfl (1997) explains it by saying that "phenomenological inquiry, or qualitative research, uses a naturalistic approach that seeks to understand phenomena in context-specific settings. Logical positivism, or quantitative research, uses experimental methods and quantitative measures to test hypothetical generalizations (p. 14)". Custer (1996) also points out that "the qualitative-quantitative dichotomy dates back as early as the 17th century where

divine truth), I outline the positions of two other contemporary thinkers: Katô Hiroyuki and Takahashi Satomi. With respect to Nishida, they offer markedly different takes on the question of universal truth: Katô favors an antireligious, scientific positivism while Takahashi accepts an existentialist notion of radical human finitude, in which human access to any certainty is denied. I conclude that one is confronted with a lively debate by Japanese philosophers inside Japan about the definition of truth

be asking why God, if he existed, would let such bad things happen to basically good people. Another philosopher who expressed heretical views about conventional religion during Hardy's era was Auguste Comte, founder of positivism. In his writings on positivism, Comte "set forth a comprehensive theory of the historical development of human knowledge" (Mitchell 619). According to Comte, humanity has thus far moved through three phases: theological, metaphysical and positive. The positive

nature between reason and vital feeling, that is, between culture and life. It is well known that Wittgenstein is responsible for two great moments in the philosophy of this century; the first initially and incorrectly identified with logical positivism, and the second even now considered as paradigm of Analytic philosophy. Insofar as identifications, both interpretations seem to me to show an imperfect and only partial understanding of Wittgenstein's philosophical motivations, but I do not intend

Positivism is a research method that developed from the behavioral revolution, which sought to combine positivism and empiricism to politics (Halperin and Heath, 2012: 27). That is to say, this research approach is governed by natural law to observe, understand and to find meaning in the empirical world. This type of research seeks to answer two empirical questions, such as ‘what is out there’ and ‘what do we call it’ (Gerring, 2001: 156). Positivism is only interested in phenomenons that can be

Jetton 95). Hence men are being described as machines, and this comparison will fuel the critics of behaviorism (Reynolds, Sinatra, & Jetton 95). The History of Behaviorism Behaviorism’s foundation is comprised of positivism, animal psychology, and functionalism. Positivism is defined as "valid knowledge that is objectively observational "(Alberto & Troutman 30). Further, Charles Darwin contributed to behavioral psychology with his research regarding a... ... middle of paper ... ...hnology

to the Sociological concept of positivism and antipositivism. Positivism is the scientific study of social patterns. This pertains to the use of scientific methods to get a more clear understanding of the natural world. Auguste Comte was the founder of this concept. Comte believed the way that society interacts with individuals using positivism would usher in a new “positivist” age of history. Comte concept of positivism is still relevant today. Since then positivism has been expanded and became

Criminological Imagination Book Review Jock Young’s book “The Criminological Imagination” very clearly spells out the author’s feeling that orthodox criminology has lost its way and has been swallowed up into obscurification through bogus, post-modern positivism. Young postulates, the cost of this phenomena is the loss of critical thinking and objectivity in the field of criminology. Young contends criminology can be rescued from obscurity if returning to its orthodox beginnings by reducing the impact