The Stanford Philosophy encyclopedia says:
In 1967 John Passmore reported that: “Logical positivism, then, is dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes.” (1967, 57) Earlier in the same article he had equated logical positivism with logical empiricism, so presumably that was dead too. At that time few would have disagreed with Passmore, even though Carnap was still alive and active.And yet many science advocates express such views, such as:
Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.These are positivist ideas, but it is hard to find someone who identifies himself as a positivist. It is easier to find an atheist.
Christopher Hitchens: Claims that are made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
I suspect that many of these skeptic-atheist-scientist types are not really positivists. If they were, then why wouldn't they say so?
I think the reason is that they have beliefs, ethics, and political views that they cannot substantiate, and they do not want to have to try. Complaining about someone else's lack of evidence is a rhetorical device for undermining an argument, and does not necessarily mean that all beliefs require evidence. Sagan believed in all sorts of things without good evidence, such as extraterrstial life, triune brain, and nuclear winter.
Einstein expressed anti-positivist views in his later life.
Positivism has been replaced by paradigm shift theory, which rejects objective reality and rationalism, and validates anything that can be interpreted within the appropriate paradigm.
I think that positivism is a much better philosophy of science than paradigm shift theory and its other modern replacements.