Hard Problem of Positivism

The central flaw in the idea that only verifiable, empirical statements are meaningful. The hard problem is that the core principle of positivism—"only statements verified by empirical observation are meaningful"—is itself not verifiable by empirical observation. It's a metaphysical claim about meaning, making it self-refuting. It tries to use philosophy to declare philosophy useless, like using a ladder to climb up and then kicking it away.

Example: "The old-school positivist declared ethics and art 'nonsense' because they couldn't be tested in a lab. The hard problem of positivism was that his own declaration was, by his own standard, nonsense. He was left silently judging everyone with a philosophy he claimed didn't exist."

by Abzugal January 30, 2026

Hard Problem of Neopositivism

The more sophisticated successor's struggle: trying to ground science and meaning in logic and empirical data while wrestling with the realization that observation is theory-laden, and no final, pure "protocol sentence" exists. The hard problem is that the boundary between analytic (logic/math) and synthetic (empirical) statements, which the whole system relied on, turned out to be blurry. Quine's "web of belief" showed you can't test a single statement in isolation—you can always save a cherished hypothesis by adjusting other parts of the network.

Example: "The neopositivist insisted science was just cumulative facts. The hard problem hit when a paradigm shift made him reject facts he'd previously sworn were verified. He realized the 'facts' were never raw data; they were stories he believed until a better story came along." Hard Problem of Neopositivism

by Abzugal January 30, 2026

Hard Problem of Scientism

The paradox of claiming science as the only valid way to know anything: such a claim is not a scientific claim, but a philosophical one. Scientism cannot be validated by the scientific method; it's an article of faith. The hard problem is that it uses the authority of science to make an unscientific, totalizing statement about knowledge, thereby violating its own rule and collapsing into dogma.

Example: "He said, 'If it's not in a peer-reviewed journal, it's not real knowledge.' When asked if that statement itself was in a peer-reviewed journal, he scoffed. That's the hard problem of scientism: the claim that silences all other voices can't survive its own microphone check."

by Abzugal January 30, 2026

Hard Problem of Materialism

The challenge of explaining how purely material stuff (atoms, forces) gives rise to phenomena that seem immaterial: consciousness, meaning, mathematics, and the laws of logic. If everything is just particles in motion, where does the feeling of pain live? Where does the truth of '2+2=4' exist? The hard problem is reconciling the rich world of experiences, abstractions, and values with a universe supposedly composed of nothing but mindless, valueless matter.

Example: "The materialist explained love as oxytocin and evolutionary advantage. The hard problem of materialism was when his own child was born, and that cold explanation shattered into a billion pieces of awe he couldn't locate in any brain scan, no matter how hard he tried."

by Abzugal January 30, 2026

Hard Problem of Physicalism

A more nuanced version of materialism's problem. Physicalism claims everything is physical or supervenes on the physical. The hard problem is defining "the physical" without circularity. Physics describes the behavior of matter, but doesn't define its essence. Furthermore, if physics is just our best current model, then physicalism becomes the claim "everything is whatever our current physics says it is," which is both provisional and strangely empty. It's materialism with a philosophy degree, but still struggling.

*Example: "She's a physicalist but admits physics doesn't have a clue about consciousness. The hard problem of physicalism: she believes consciousness is 100% physical, but 'the physical' is an ever-changing list of quarks, fields, and maybe strings. She's betting on a mystery being solved by a moving target."*

by Abzugal January 30, 2026

Hard Problem of Linguistics

The puzzle of how finite beings (humans) using a finite set of rules (grammar) and symbols (words) can produce and understand a potentially infinite number of novel, meaningful sentences. Even deeper: how does meaning arise from squawks and scribbles? The formal structure of language can be described, but the jump from syntax to semantics—from "word salad" to "I love you"—remains a profound gap between physical signals and understood ideas.

Example: "The AI can parse grammar perfectly and generate grammatically correct sentences about anything. The hard problem of linguistics is why its essay on heartbreak feels like a dishwasher manual, while a toddler's broken 'Daddy go?' carries a universe of meaning and longing."

by Abzugal January 30, 2026

Hard Problem of Science

The meta-problem: science is a method for understanding the universe, but the method itself—relying on induction, uniformity of nature, and the reliability of our senses and logic—cannot be scientifically proven without begging the question. Why should the future resemble the past? Why trust our instruments? Science works, gloriously, but its ultimate foundation is a philosophical leap of faith. The hard problem is that science can explain everything except its own astonishing success.

Example: "We used science to build the telescope that discovered the Big Bang. The hard problem of science is that we can't point that telescope back at the scientific method to see why it's so true. Its power is demonstrated by its fruits, but its roots are in philosophical soil."

by Abzugal January 30, 2026