Why?! By Margaret Leora Workman; Warponie Art

So the core tenants make sense to me but Comte’s law of three stages seem to contradict those and each other. What does anyone else think? Does anyone care about this? I couldn’t find anything helpful in this book because it seems more general and not so specific.

I was bored so I thought I would come to the park and read something. I started with one idea and then got to this other idea. Anyway, does it make sense?

Here is my first explanation of how I am understanding it and then my question:

Positivism deduces knowledge that can be scientifically proven based off of observations of situations and actions and evidence is gained through experiences, meaning that you can only receive knowledge of a subject through understanding the experience of it.

This philosophy states that it rejects metaphysical evidence, which refers to an abstract way of looking at the universe and how we relate to it.

This philosophy also rejects theological speculation, which is the study of God, religion and religious belief. Look at the Greek word Theos (God) and the Greek word Logos (word or study). These two Greek words make up the word ‘theology’.

This philosophy rejects these two ways of deducing and receiving information. If you look at the world through either of these two paradigms then the philosophy of positivism will not be available to you. Then look at how it also states that the human mind goes through three processes of thought while deducing situations: theological, metaphysical and then lands at the positivist stage, which is the most advanced stage, they suggest. But aren’t these situations already proven through the experiments that already happened by using only empirical evidence? Since positivism rejects those two forms of evidence then how could a person use those paradigms to retrieve the evidence that has already been proven using empirical evidence by backtracking into the metaphysical and theological paradigms in order to retrieve the evidence again? Isn’t it already proven using empirical evidence?