RE language S.V.P, W.V.P, F.P etc
- Created by: Ashleigh Owens
- Created on: 15-11-13 11:47
View mindmap
- Religious Language Questions: Verification Principles and Complications.
- The sentence ALL SWEATY SOCKS STINK is meaningless under the S.V.P but meaningful under the W.V.P. Explain.
- Under the S.V.P, it is meaningless because there is no possible way we can smell every sweaty sock that has ever been (past, present and future). Thus, we don't have the empirical evidence to verify it is a meaningful statement.
- It is meaningful in the W.V.P because it allowed statements to be verified if they were probable or the statement would be meaningful in principle. As sweat usually makes socks stink, it is probable all sweaty socks stink, and past observation has seen this is so. Thus, the statement is meaningful.
- Explain why Karl Popper thought that The Verification Principle is so inadequate as a test for meaningful sentences.
- Karl Popper believed it to be inadequate to verifiy meaning because itself and science were not actualy verifiable by it. It would 'wipe out all science' as he put it.
- *Extra stuff: The L.P's then modified it to accomadate science, it is not whether it can be VERIFIED but whether it can be FALSIFIED,
- Popper actually never intended for his falsification principle to be used to verfify meaning. He wanted to distinguish between science and non-science. He wished to destroy L.P.
- *Extra stuff: The L.P's then modified it to accomadate science, it is not whether it can be VERIFIED but whether it can be FALSIFIED,
- Karl Popper believed it to be inadequate to verifiy meaning because itself and science were not actualy verifiable by it. It would 'wipe out all science' as he put it.
- Explain the difference between the V.P and the F,P,
- The F,P is about finding things that can falsify the statement to prove meaning.
- The V,P is about finding evidence to argue for the meaning of the statement.
- These both have the same issue, they don't work with all statements.
- The F,P is about finding things that can falsify the statement to prove meaning.
- These both have the same issue, they don't work with all statements.
- Explain why the F.P cannot falsify the following statement: NOT ALL SWEATY SOCKS STINK.
- It cannot be proved that all sweaty socks (past, present and future) won't not stink. There may be a sweaty sock in the future that won't stink.
- The sentence ALL SWEATY SOCKS STINK is meaningless under the S.V.P but meaningful under the W.V.P. Explain.
Comments
No comments have yet been made