and yet the people who first delineated and formalized a critical hint about the nature of reality, the people who first discovered what sort of things seem to be real,were trying to solve a completely different-sounding question.
You should give some credit to the logical positivists, because you seem to be trying to re-invent logical positivism. It would be nice to explain how what you’re getting into differs from logical positivism.
It would also be nice to do a critical analysis of the refutation of logical positivism. Students today are taught that it’s completely discredited. But it was “disproved” by philosophers, which should give one pause. Quine’s “proofs” of the principle of ontological relativity, at least, are completely vacuous; and if you do the math, you find that it’s false.
You should give some credit to the logical positivists, because you seem to be trying to re-invent logical positivism. It would be nice to explain how what you’re getting into differs from logical positivism.
It would also be nice to do a critical analysis of the refutation of logical positivism. Students today are taught that it’s completely discredited. But it was “disproved” by philosophers, which should give one pause. Quine’s “proofs” of the principle of ontological relativity, at least, are completely vacuous; and if you do the math, you find that it’s false.