Was Schrödinger a positivist? I can find no connection. This is from Wikipedia, discussing Schrödinger’s “What is Life?”:

“Upanishads considered this insight of "ATHMAN = BRAHMAN" to "represent quintessence of deepest insights into the happenings of the world. Schrödinger rejects the idea that the source of consciousness should perish with the body”

Isn't philosophy the thinking about thinking? Study of all knowledge without technical precepts or practical arts? You used a lot of big words that I'm too lazy to look up right now... But I think you're basically asking about the power of positive thinking? Whether it exists or is useful?

Old Shopy...haven't heard that name in awhile. He was a gloomy fellow wasn't he? Believing that the pursuit of happiness was futile? Followers of the secret would say he called his descent into obscurity into existence. No wonder he was such a downer.

I don't know about positivism being dead but I do have some experience with positive negative and even neutral thinking seeming to cause things to come to fruition. Of course could be shear coincidences or spot on subconscious calculations of probability. But here is an example.

This event happened to me today and it kinda amazed me. Some background info is appropriate first.

I started a new job at a retail establishment about a month ago. They only work me a few days a week for 4-6 hours a shift. I haven't even met everyone yet. The person in the story is a supervisor who I've only worked with two or three times with maybe a grand total of an hour worth of direct interaction. Mostly work related. Her name is Robin.

Now the story. So my boyfriend broke up with me this past Sunday. It was unexpected and his method was just cruel. Long story short I've been extra emotional since then. I worked from noon to four on Sunday. My boyfriend dropped me off after a short argument during the ride. He was supposed to pick me up at 4 but never came. It took me an hour and a half to walk home. By the time I got there...all his stuff was gone. I had Monday off and worked a closing shift Tuesday. While riding the bus on my way to work I pictured a scenario of a conversation with that particular supervisor about my past few days without being aware if she would actually be working or not. But for some reason it seemed like that would be the way it might play out. The scenario initiates when Robin notices that I look upset and asks me about it.( And I proceed to tell'er the story of the 27 8x10 colored glossy pictures with the circles an arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us.... Kudos if you recognize that ridiculous reference and why it applies)

So in the real world I arrive at work, clock in, head to my work area, turn the corner and boom there's Robin. She says hi and then gives me that tilted head look of curiosity and asks "Everything alright?"

I looked at her with a tear in my eye and said all sing songy...

"You can get anything you want at Alice's Resturaunt" and walked the he'll away.

Sounds like philosophy is trying to defend itself against the relentless advancement of science.

This is why I detest philosophy. It's such a waste of mental effort and time. It doesn't solve anything in the world. It's academic daydreaming.

Sigh

See, now I'm depressed.

The answer to that can be an internet post, or it can be a book. I will tongue the ball a bit.

Okay, so let's say that positivism is defined as the belief that the scientific faculties of deriving true knowledge are the only way of learning true knowledge.

Now, what might be the metaphysical underpinnings of this? In other words, how is this derived formulaically from undeniable conclusions?

First, we need a modus that nullifies the subjective component. We can't just say "I sense this, so this must be a notable observation". This is not a logically necessary conclusion.

We need a nuanced enough method of obtaining an observational space. We need the different kinds of observers to then confirm that the observations are noted correctly.

So now that we can obtain verifiable axioms, and it is only a matter of time until we realize that no, science is not the only way to obtain truth. We will realize that there is also math, philosophy, technology...basically anything that is properly sourced is honest.

In fact, it has been polluted with political agendas, is poorly studied, and most, if not all scientific studies I have read do not articulate on their sampling methodology, or use stupid methods like random sampling, which is important for assessing the viability of statistics.

The notion that scientific studies bear semblance to the wider reality is also not a necessary conclusion, because necessary conclusions come from "therefore", and not the other operators like "thus", "ergo", etc.

Here is my positive observation....you won't impress many women with philosophical metaphysical epistemological ontological positivism .

Clapton is God ?