Silly academics, reality is for kids
The core statement of philosophical positivism is that 'The only true knowledge is scientific knowledge' -- I almost want to capitalise True and Knowledge there. 'Scientific' is basically defined as verifiable or falsifiable by experience. Whether you verify it or falsify it naturally depends on the type of statement it is: if I were to say that phoenixes do not exist, you will have to falsify it by finding a phoenix, because verifying that something does not exist is impossible; likewise, if I say that there are indeed white black bears, then you verify it by finding a white black bear. Science!
Many of you may say that this is all well and good. There is an entire school of philosophy that says so also, to the point where they are attempting to have philosophy be scientific, with no philosophical theory being devoid of key statements which can be verified or falsified (from now on I am just going to say verified/-y/-able, and mean both). They refer to things that are not verifiable as 'metaphysical', and state, rather carefully, that these things are not scientific right now, and therefore are not presently true knowledge. The point is to build giant towers of scientifically reasoned philosophy.
Sounds like I'm setting positivism up for a fall, right? Any second now, I will pull out some postmodern truism and wield it like a club; positivist brains will splatter under my gleeful blows. But no... I actually think that positivism is right: the only true knowledge is verifiable knowledge. This is more terrifying for several reasons.
There are several fields of academic inquiry that are not verifiable in the least. Starting with the 'scientific' ones, I'll point out that theoretical physics is so called because it's not experimental, and that most math is only verifiable by doing more math. No experience can validate that D-planes and supersymmetry exist. But, in a fun turn of events, I'd like to add to the pile: critical theory; literature; any '-ology' -- sociology, anthropology, archaeology, psychology; history, and of course philosophy. Each and every one of these academic disciplines is based on speculation and 'metaphysical' statements. None of them actually causes people to know (Know?) anything. Think about what any of these has demonstratively verified beyond the most basic of facts.
OK, Introduction to the Postmodern Condition 101. Thanks so much, Jon, for wasting 4 paragraphs telling us something that we learn in first year. Well, now I have some thoughts, not especially new either, but here goes:
1) When Nietzsche more or less invented the method of writing philosophy without supporting or illustrating his arguments, a practice that has caught on in most critical circles -- though not in Anglo-American philosophy -- he had come to this self-same realisation. He is just making this shit up, and any attempt at 'proof' is futile and meaningless.
2) The heart of postmodern thinking is that scientific methodology is generally true. Speculative reason can only be true by contrast to verifiable reason. If nothing is verifiable, then there is no reason whatsoever; the accusation leveled at a lot of postmodern thinkers is actually the opposite of what underlies their thoughts. By writing as they do and throwing out speculations, the presumption is that there are some things that are verifiable, but the death of the writer, the name of the father, differance, and all these theories can only exist by standing in contrast to verifiable knowledge.
3) Slavoj Zizek is (naturally) right in saying that the identity of a thing lies not in the thing itself, but outside of itself in its opposite. The Jacques (Derrida, that is) said the same thing, only differently.
4) By far the greater part of academia is an exercise in making shit up, saying it with force, and never applying it because it is impossible. The practice of the liberal arts, and a good portion of the sciences, is writing really excellent, well thought-out, and involved fiction. One day I will be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for this, and I think that I am OK with it.
5) The logical, science-based agenda of Anglo-American philosophy is a joke. Every discipline but them has come to this conclusion some years ago. Anglo-American philosophers are often not the smartest, but actually the dumbest of all academics; their discipline is largely a relic that has been eaten and surpassed by smarter, more dynamic fields.