Positivism vs Empiricism

Positivism vs Empiricism

These 2 words may seem to be synonyms,
but I have seen that where we have only about 100 000 words in the English language
to describe an almost infinite multiverse, it is prudent to tease out subtle meanings
between seemingly synonymous terms.

There has been such a vast amount of exploration in the sciences that most of what
we take for 'knowledge' and label 'empirical' is actually taken 'on faith'.

We assume that 'the scientists' have followed a strict protocol and that they have a
rigid definition between theory and fact. Anyone who has made a lengthy foray into
psychology will soon come to realize that for each claim to 'psychological fact' there
is a counter claim to the contrary. The notion of experimenter-bias and deferment
to the figure of authority is so prevalent, that the very notion of 'empirical' has become
a label more suited to mean 'consensus'.

This is why the 'Positivism vs Empiricism' debate tries to underscore the notion that only when
one has personally examined all the details oneself does it deserve the term 'positivist'.

Of course as the amount of data gets incrementally larger, so the genuine positivist
inquiry becomes significantly smaller. And as the possibility of gross incorrect assumptions
becomes larger, so the likelihood of dogmatic surrender to falsehood becomes ever more severe.

But this is not just in psychology. The inheritance of corruption is a tragedy that pervades all
of the history of knowledge. The very term 'science' may just become everything it set out not to be.

This is what Frank Herbert in his epic 'Dune' was trying to tell us:
Don't lose the essence of the spirit of truth in the quest for power.
One seemingly small false assumption compounds into extravagant evil.