More clarification

How about one of the great-grandfathers of LP, the nominalist William of Occam, who in his SUMMA LOGICAE, rejected Aquinas's claim that theology is a science and his proofs for the existence of God. Occam had to flee Avignon as he was about to be convicted of heresy. Do we know on what grounds Moritz Schlick rejected Hans Nelbock's paper? What about Fritz Haber who has been called one of the greatest saviors of mankind because of his innovations in production of fertilizers that saved the food supply, but also developed processes that saved the German munitions industry and prolonged WWI. Not to mention heading a company that developed Zyclon B as an insecticide before it was used in the Shoah.

I think Hume should rethink his judgment about what books should be consigned to the flames. Suppose Joseph Mengele publishes a very scientific, logical cookbook about how to consign Jews to the flames. It obeys Hume's rules about number, empiric data like temperature, etc. Raoul Wallenberg gets emotionally upset and writes a very "inflammatory",
judgmental, even hysterical book about how Mengele is nuts and should be arrested. Would LP say that Wallenberg's book doesn't meet LP standards and that's all there is to it? Would LP say that Mengele's book meets LP standards? Aristotle said that science should be based on premises that can be demonstrated. But how do we choose our premises? I still favor the Taoist alchemists here

Let me suggest an answer to my questions: On the Internet (Amazon.com) I ran across a book by Colin Wilks titled EMOTION, TRUTH AND MEANING: "In Defense of Ayer and Stevenson". The Amazon editorial reviewer says that Dr. Wilks "clarifies what the emotivists actually meant when they made some of their more controversial claims". I've ordered the book from the library, but I think that Wilks is saying the LP folks undervalued emotion by denying meaning to that which cannot be presently demonstrated (verified or falsified). And does LP tell us what to choose to verify or falsify? When doc says LP is just a technical tool,
I agree. When Nicholas says that LP promoters overreached and turned everything into a nail that would yield to their hammer, I would agree if that's true. It seems the LP folks did make some extreme statements. When Dr. Wilks says he will "clarify what the LP people meant",
he implies there's some confusion that needs to be resolved. I look forward to his book.

On Nicholas's posts on trust and the failure of the Church and knowledge: The Chruch failed with me because I was constantly threatened with Mengele's fire (The Apocalypse/Revelation of John). A friend has been taking me to adult classes at a local Presbyterian church. I'm explaining that if they want a God, they should throw out the Nazi thug they've got and begin to rewrite Scripture by replacing the Apocalypse of John with the Apocalypse of Peter.
The latter Apocalypse admits everyone to Heaven (cf. Unamuno, TRAGIC SENSE OF LIFE).
But it was rejected by the early Church fathers as a Gnostic heresy. This might cause conflict with Nicholas. Einstein was my high school hero and I went to MIT in search of the Unified Field Theory. Then I figured out that a TOE (Theory of Everything) would take longer than forever. But a TOE (Theory of Everyman) would not. I'm back with the Taoist alchemists who lost debates with Confucians and Buddhists because they (the Taoists) preferred experiment (praxis) to language.