Verification Principle

Verification Principle

1. Invented by the a group of 1920s philosophers called the logical positivists of the vienna circle

   • Claimed language could only be meaningful if it could be verified by sense observation, or it is a tautology: known to be true in itself ie triangle has three sides
     • Anything which could not be verified was meaningless in a factual sense therefore religious language of God meaningless
       • Would claim talk of existence of God is meaningless, same for what atheists/agnostics say
     • The empiricism of John Locke and Hume influenced them who argue truth and knowledge are found through senses
   • Vienna circle thinkers became known as strong verificationists - insistent statements had to be verified in practice
     • Too rigid, implies history is meaningless- no empirical observations

2. Swinburne

   • Pointed out universal statments cannot be verified, i.e. 'all raves are black' hence they're nonsense to verification principle

3. A.J Ayer in 'language, truth and logic

   • Supported verification, if it could not be verified it was either meaningless or a tautology, meaningless is not factually significant - 'may be emotionally significant to him but it is not literally significant"
     • Distinguishes between strong (anything verifies conclusively by observation/experience) and weak (shown to be probable by observation/experience)
       • Argues we should use weak as strong 'had no possible application' gives example of cases with infinite results i.e. all humans are mortal
   • Ayer proposed a procedure for verifying- called 'putative verifiability'
     • Distinguishes between 'practical verifiability' from 'verifiability in principle'
       • Practical verifiability to statements which could be tested in reality i.e. car is red; however things such as 'there is life on other planets' is verifiable in principle but not in practice as we lack the tech
   • if verification applied to religious language its meaningless because they cannot be supported by observations from experience of what is probable
     • SL - cosmological/telelogical arguments say God exists - criticised for inability to verify arguments from sense experience
     • Ayer says we can make no meaningful statements about meta-physical ideas because we have no knowledge of things beyond experience
     • if God is defined in a traditional sense as infinite, impersonal and transcendent its meaningless as say nothing of the world which is verifiable
     • Ayer also rejects religious experience arguments as they could be recounting emotions -meaningless

4. Ayers second edition

   • Responded to criticisms in second edition: rejects putative statements
   • Changes definition of verification: "a statement is literally meaningful if and only if it is either analytic or empirically verifiable"
     • He changed it as he concluded distinction between strong and weak wasn't real
       • He referred to 'basic statements' by which he meant 'a single experience' when you have the experience it is reality, experience is verified by its occurrence
     • Also rejects previous definition f weak as it is 'far too liberal since it allows meaning to any statement'
       • To solve the problem of strong/weak he proposed directly/indirectly verifiability
         • Direct verifiability meant a statement that is variable by observations i.e. post boxes are red
         • Indirectly verifiable: a statement can be verified if other directly verifiable evidence could support it i.e. scientists can say black holes exist but cannot directly observe
           • Religious claims meaningless. also no meaningful statements beyond the world of sense as have no knowledge beyond our own - 'such a reality have all been devoted to the production of nonsense'

5. Criticisms

   • Verification is unverifiable: to claim that somethings meaningless if cannot be verified is an unverifiable principle - cannot be demonstradetd by sense observation
   • God talk is eschatological verifiable. John Hick says religion not meaningless because its verifiable in principle.
     • Gives example of two travellers through life to celestial city. one believes there is a city at the end the other doesn't, the first believes difficulties are for learning and good events a gift whereas the other welcomes good and endures bad. whichever one is right will be verified in the end therefore religious satements verifiable in principle.
   • Strong verification criticism for excluding too many areas of knowledge i.e. history. also excluded universal statements i.e. water always boils at 100 degrees
     • Ayer says strong has no possible application and says there is no need to qualify version of weak as its the 'only sense in which any proposition could conceivably be verified'
   • its possible for a statement to be true without being verifiable: swinburne uses toys in cupboard example - come out at night when no one observes them still meaningful even if fictions