2019 Bible Pg. 248 Mini-Passage 1 (Vienna Circle)

[HarryK]

Hi,

I have two questions.

1) On line 4 - 5, ("Their aim was to present a unified vision of the world, where knowledge can only derive from experience through the application of logical analysis"), I am not entirely sure of the grammar of ", where" here. My thought is: by ", where", the author is not saying that the unified vision is (is nothing more or less than) "knowledge can only derive from experience". He just means that in such a world (a world viewed by the Vienna Circle), "knowledge can only derive from experience" holds true; but there can be 'other things' entailed by that unified vision (say, "political, philosophical, scientific unity" at the end of the passage). I wanted to check with you whether my line of thought is correct because I think distinguishing "unified vision of the world" from "the empiricist attitude" is crucial for answering question 1. If they are the same (if the unified vision is nothing more than the empiricist view), then Einstein could not reject the unified vision while sharing the empiricist attitude (answer choice C; the correct one).

2) In your explanation of question 2 on this passage (explanation on pg. 254), you said answer choice (B) is incorrect because 'the failure to present a unified vision of the world concerns Einstein's view on positivism'; as if this answer choice is not even close to being a 'Contender' for the question that asks for the metaphysicist's view. But I thought that (B), though incorrect, is a Contender for the following reason: from "Not surprisingly" on line 7, I assumed that the fact that "the Vienna Circle eschewed metaphysics" is not surprising in light of what was said immediately before (that VC aims to present a unified world view and that they hold an empiricist attitude). Thus, before I read "embracing a decidedly...") I could infer the following: VC eschewed metaphysics presumably because the metaphysicists went against either (a) a unified world view or (b) an empiricist attitude. That is: at this point, I thought that the answer choice (B) is a possible answer because it says the metaphysicist went against (a) (only a possible one because MP could have gone against (b) and also because going against (a) does not necessarily mean that the metaphysicist failed to present a unified world view, thereby making this answer choice too strong to be an answer to a Must be True Q at this point). Then I read that the VC "embrac[ed] a decidedly empiricist attitude", from which I could conclude that MP went against (b), making (C) not (B) as the correct answer. I just wanted to check with you whether my line of thought (initially keeping (b) as a contender) is correct here.

Thank you,
Harry

[Adam Tyson]

I agree with your analysis in #1 in your post, Harry - the passage suggests that the positivist philosophy requires that their unified vision be based on knowledge derived through experience and logical analysis. It does not deny that there can be other unified visions based on different philosophies.

And that is why I disagree with your view in #2 in your post. The author gives no reason to believe that metaphysics does not involve a unified vision of the world, but only that any such vision is not based on the empirical criteria so important to the positivists. Metaphysics must involve something other than, or in addition to, experience and logical analysis. Look not only to what came before the mention of metaphysics, but also what it was juxtaposed against immediately after it was mentioned: "embracing a decidedly empiricist attitude." In other words, empiricism is something different from metaphysics.

You're correct that answer B COULD be true. The problem is that the passage never suggests that it is, but only suggests that metaphysics is not based on the same criteria as positivism. That makes C a much better answer.