Verificationism

Página 1

Verifyability in principle

"There is life on Mars"

Verifiable in PRINCIPLE, but we don't have the technology to find out in PRACTICE.

Practical verification

Can be tested in reality

Strong verification

Observation and experience...conclusively verified.

Weak Verification

Observation and experience...probable.

"All human beings are mortal"

> We would need to kill every human being who lives and will live.

> This is impossible, but we accept it as fact.

Language is only meaningful if it can be verified by sense observation.

Criticisms of Verificationism

Verificationism is not verifiable

God-talk is eschatologically verifiable

Strong verification excludes many areas of knowledge

What counts as evidence, exactly?

Statements can be meaningful and unverifiable

(Verifiable in principle but not falsifiable)

(There is no sense observation available for historical facts)

Swinburne: It excludes universal statements like 'water boils at 100 degrees"

Swinburne: There are many areas of debate where getting people to agree on what counts as evidence would be the issue.

Swinburne: Toys in a cupboard.

(The toys only come out at night. Meaningful but unverifiable.)

Schrodinger's cat

(A radioactive particle could kill the cat at any time. If you open the box you could trigger it. You can't verify if the cat is dead or alive)

John Hick

Religion is verifiable in principle, so it meets the conditions of verification.

Language is only meaningful if it is analytic or empirically verifiable.

The distinction between strong and weak is not a real distinction

Weak verification allows meaning to everything and is therefore too liberal.

Rejects putative (assuming) statements

Single experiences

An experience, while it may not be describable, is verified by it's occurrence.

Directly verifiable statements

A statement that is verifiable by observation

Indirectly verifiable statements

The statement cannot be verified by observation, but by supporting statements which can

Verificationism is not verifiable

God-talk is eschatologically verifiable

Strong verification excludes many areas of knowledge

What counts as evidence, exactly?

Statements can be meaningful and unverifiable

God is verifiable in principle but not falsifiable

There is no sense observation available for historical facts

Swinburne

It excludes universal statements like 'water boils at 100 degrees"

There are many areas of debate where getting people to agree on what counts as evidence would be the issue.

Toys in a cupboard.

(The toys only come out at night. Meaningful but unverifiable.)

John Hick

Religion is verifiable in principle, so it meets the conditions of verification.

Schrodinger's cat

(A radioactive particle could kill the cat at any time. If you open the box you could trigger it. You can't verify if the cat is dead or alive)

Ayer's Verificationism

Criticisms

Ayer's Second Edition