-A.J. Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic
Ayer challenges us to attempt to construct an argument on a question of value that does not reduce down to either a question of logic or an empirical matter of fact â€“ a comment that caught my attention precisely because of the continual use of â€œempirialâ€ in this essay. Ayer places great stock in that which can be empirically confirmed, which seems to be rooted in Russellâ€™s belief that it is not desirable to believe in a proposition when thereâ€™s no ground in believing its truth/factuality. But this reliance on the infallibility of empirical fact seems to be a flaw in Ayerâ€™s philosophy.
The concept of empirical fact is flawed by the concept known as the observerâ€™s paradox. At itâ€™s most basic, this paradox says that the observation of an event, an experiment, of anything, is influenced by the presence of the observer. We bias what we see, and what we see is biased by us â€“ the idea that there can be a control by observation has been critiqued for quite some time.
How we formulate knowledge, share it, and confirm it is certainly important â€“ there wouldnâ€™t be library shelves dedicated to it otherwise â€“ but to say that the only thing that can be truly known is that which is empirically verifiable leaves itself open to critique from the area of philosophy that questions our ability to remove ourselves from the equation to allow for a truly neutral observation