Verificationism

?
  • Created by: A. Person
  • Created on: 24-05-17 14:29

The Verification Principle

Ayer: the VP is a way to eliminate metaphysics. It claims a statement is meaningful iff related to experience, i.e. if we know which observations would render it true/false. 

Schlick: 'What does P mean' equivalent to 'How can P be verified'. Logical rules ('grammar') which specify conditions under which statement can be used, which essentially amounts to its verification method. Example: 'take me to a place where the sky is as blue as England.

1 of 6

Objection 1: Self-Undercutting

The principle neither analytic nor verifiable; thus, it is meaningless by its own terms.

Ayer's Response: 

The principle is a definition of meaning (a technical term) and is thus analytic. But we can ask why a metaphysician should care about the principle, if it simply defines some technical term, rather than having any substantive consequences.

Carnap: endorses the principle of tolerance -- the VP is dogmatic; but it is useful.

2 of 6

Generality

General statements are not verifiable. 'All S are P', where S denotes an infinite set; nor are existential generalisations like 'there is at least one red swan'.

Ramsey's Response: Treat as rules/principles? Not true or false?

Ayer's Response: Strong/Weak distinction: 

Weak: what is relevant to verification? Experiential propositions follow from WV statements + other premises.(Applied: every emerald is green follows from 'x is an emerald' + 'every emerald is green').

Berlin's Objection:

No restriction on auxilliary propositions.. 'This logical problem is green, I dislike all shades of green, therefore I dislike this logical problem'. Essentially means anything can be verified.

3 of 6

4. Indirect/Direct

Direct: an observation statement, or entails an observation statement with an observation statement.

Indirect: S entails with S* an observation statement; No statement in S* can be non-meaningful.

Church's Objection:

3 observation statements: P Q R, neither of which entail the other. S a nonsense statement.

1) (¬P ^ Q) v (R ^ ¬S). 

C's argument: whether or not Q is entailed by 1, S ends up true.

This is directly verifiable: (1)  + P = R. R an OS; not just entailed by P. 

Q not entailed by (1) - Entailed by S + (1), so S is indirectly verifiable.

Q entailed by (1) by both conjuncts, but in partic. right hand side (2). If (2) is true, then Q. Then we get the negation of S as directly verifiable: and the negation of this is indirectly verifiable...

So S is meaningful, whatever it is.

4 of 6

Non-categorical propositions

When the antecedent of a hypothetical proposition is unfulfiled, the opportunity to verify it disappears.

Can only weakly verify it - which suggests that one's own actions result in a change in meaning.

5 of 6

Singular statements

:O

6 of 6

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Philosophy resources:

See all Philosophy resources »See all v resources »