4.2 Verification and falsification debates

Question 1

What is logical positivism and what do they believe?

Answer 1

• Theory which applied principle of science and maths to language
• Believe that language can only be meaningful if it can be proved by the verification principle
• e.g the Vienna circle

Question 2

Who were the vienna circle?

Answer 2

Group of scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers who met in Vienna in the 1920s under Moritz Schlick to debate many sybjects, most importantly, how we come to know things- called logical positivists

Question 3

What is an analytic proposition?

Answer 3

A statement/ assertion which is true by definition
e.g a bachelor is an unmarried man

Question 4

What is a synthetic proposition?

Answer 4

statement/ assertion which can be verified by subjecting them to empirical testing
e.g dogs bark- can be verified through sound

Question 5

What is a mathematical propositio?

Answer 5

a statement which is true by mathematical language

Question 6

What is the verification principle?

Answer 6

Statements are meaningful if they can be verified one of two ways:
1. analytic propositions- true by definition
2. Synthetic propositions- true by confirmation of the senses

Question 7

What did Ayer think about religious language?

Answer 7

Ayer thought that religious claims are non-cognitive and impossible to verify, so are meaningless

Question 8

How does the VP support the idea that RL is meaningless?

Answer 8

1. Any discussion relating to God and belief isn’t based on common ground
2. RL is not univocal so the meaning of an assertion may be unclear (equivocal)
3. RL is equivocal language as it is talking about the realm of infinite existence- the result is different interpretations/ understandings of words

Question 9

Is RL verifiable?

Answer 9

• often RL can’t be understood universally
• you can’t use the VP to prove the statement’s truth
• what does it mean to verify a statement?

Question 10

Strengths of the verification principle

Answer 10

• Knowledge is accessible to everyone
• Objective/ simple process for verifying statements
• based on physical evidence

Question 11

Weaknesses of the verification principle

Answer 11

• depends upon scientific understanding
• Can’t look at truths from religion, poetry, history, ethics, and science in the same way: Ayer dismisses many important subjects
• Even if we don’t think a statement can be verified it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have SOME meaning
• opinions and emotions are unverifiable: ‘I love you’ is unverifiable and according to Ayer meaningless as it is impossible to prove
• ethical and moral statements are unverifiable- ‘do not kill’ no longer has verifiable meaning
• laws of science are unverifiable- ‘gravity always makes things fall’- untestable as can’t infinitely experiement
• the verification principle is unverifiable as it cannot be proven

Question 12

Who was Anthony Flew?

Answer 12

English philosopher, athiest his whole life until 2004 when he became a deist

Question 13

What is Flew’s falsification principle?

Answer 13

• Flew was concerned with what makes something false not true
• language only meaningful if we can think of evidence to count against it
• problem with ‘God talk’ is that is often implies it could never be falsified

Question 14

how does the FP support the idea that religious language is meaningless?

Answer 14

1. statement is verifiable, if it is known what evidence could count against it or prove it false
2. RL is meaningless as nothing counts against religious statements
3. Religious claims can neither be proved true or proved false, as believers don‘t accept any evidence to count against their belief

Question 15

Strengths of the FP

Answer 15

• meaningful language is that which based on fact
• worthy method- used on science in peer review
• empirical evidence, accessible to all

Question 16

Weaknesses of the falsification principle

Answer 16

• Not all meaningful statements are Falsifiable some meaningful statements are not falsifiable
• Claims inductive statements as meaningless- as conclusions are probable rather than certain
• Doesn’t Account for Theoretical entities- struggles with theoretical entities that are not directly observable
• Doesn’t Account for Metaphysical claims- struggles with metaphysical claims that are not empirically testable

Question 17

What are some critics of the FP and the VP and what do they say?

Answer 17

R.M Hare: RL is non-cognitive, can’t make factual statements but is still meaningful

Basil Mitchell: flew is wrong to say that believers don’t lt anything count against their faith, they have a prior commitment to trust God

Richard Swinburne: there are statements that can’t be falsified, yet we understad the meaning behind the satement, e.g toy in the cupboard

R.B Baithwaite: error to treat RL as cognitive when it’s non-cognitive

Question 18

What is a ‘blik’ and who came up with them?

Answer 18

• a worldview that is meaningful and significant to you
• Hare

Question 19

How do bliks allow individuals to talk about religion meaningfully?

Answer 19

‘Has meaning not because it imparts knowledge but because it influences the way in which people look at the world’

Question 20

What parable did Flew write?

set text 1

Answer 20

Parable of the gardener

Question 21

Give a summary of Flew’s parable

Answer 21

Parable of the Gardener:
- 2 explorers, a believer and a sceptic, come across a garden which has been pruned but still has weeds
- the believer believes there is an gardener who tends to the garden in even though there is no evidence of such, he develops his theory that the gardener is secretive, invisible and scentless to account for the lack of evidence of this gardener, and also deny the weeds
- The sceptic becomes enraged because he claims that the believer is not allowing his original assertion to be falsified and instead edits the claim to add credibility, and believes the believer’s claim has now become meaningless
- god= the gardener
- believer= religious person
- sceptic= athiest/ scientist
- weeds= evil and suffering

Question 22

What does Flew’s parable ask theists?

Answer 22

• To accept that there is evidence which can point towards disproving God (RL would bemeaninful if it was falsified)
• Accept there is no evidence that can disprove their belief- they will always believe in God no matter the case put before them. Those who believe in God lack the empirical proof of God’s existence but continually believe in his existence
• He challenges theists to verify their assertions- and claims they ignore the laws of falsibility
• Challenges theists to come up with scenarios in which God cannot exist- attemtps to disprove his contingency and certainty

Question 23

What parable did R.M Hare write?

Answer 23

Parable of the lunatic/ univeristy don

Question 24

Give a summary of Hare’s parable

Answer 24

A lunatic at university is convinced that all dons want to murder him. Even though there is no evidence to suggest this is true the lunatic believes it completely. Hare compares this to religious believers and says that even though it can’t be proven their ‘bliks’ are still meaningful to them. Therefore RL can be meaningful

Question 25

How does **Hare** oppose **Flew**?

Answer 25

Hare says Flew mkes a fair point but to say a belief is **meaningless is inaccurate** as you have to take into account someone's **blik** is **meaningful** to them - The lunatic and his friends have differing **unfalsifiable beliefs**- they can't prove the dons do wnat to kill him, but they also can prove the dons do want to kill him. However, these bliks are still meaningful

Question 26

What are the key ideas of **Basil Mitchell**?

Answer 26

* **objects** that religous claims are groundless 'bliks' * Argues that **religious claims are grounded in some facts** and the faithful do allow that **evidence may stand against** what they believed. They recognise the problem of evil

Question 27

What parable did **Basil Mitchell** write?

Answer 27

Parable of the **Partisan**

Question 28

Give a summary of **Basil Mitchell's parable**

Answer 28

Parable of the **Partisan**: - Tells a parable of a man claiming to be the leader of a resistance group- seems he supports the fight but sometimes he is seen **helping the other side**. One could choose to trust him despite the contrary evidence: - With God- one could **trust in God** while recognising the contrary: he allows evil and suffering

Question 29

How does **Mitchell** repsond to Flew?

Answer 29

(different to Hare) Says that Flew is **wrong** in stating that **no evidence would count against religious belief** (e.g problem of evil and suffering)

Question 30

What are the 3 different ways in which we **comunicate** RL meaning it can be **understood**?

Answer 30

1. **Provisional hypothesis**: a scientific idea which can be disproved and thrown away when evidence is given to prve it wrong 2. **Vacuous formulae**: beliefs which **don't change** based on experience but also have **no large impact** on anyone **around you** (blik) 3. **Significant articles of faith**: beliefs which are **strongly** held by an indvidual and to which an individual is **committed**

Question 31

How does **Mitchell** perceive faith?

Answer 31

Faith means holding a significant **belief despite competing evidence**- believers must ensure their faith doesn't become **provisional**

Question 32

How does **Flew respond** to Mitchell and Hare?

Answer 32

To Mitchell: - There is an important difference between the stranger in the parable and **God, who is a accessory to every human evil** (he believes Mitchell will eventually resort to qualification rather than explanation when it comes to defending God in light of suffering)- false analogy To Hare: - Hare's bliks stray too far from **Christian tradition**- his bliks are more life personal experiences * Flew calls Hare's idea a '**dialectual dud check**' and says Hare hasn't given any reasons for why RL is meaningful

Question 33

Brief summary of the symposium

Answer 33

1. Flew uses the parable of the gardener- to show RL is meaningless and can't be falsified 2. Hare says that Flew is wrong- Parable of the lunatic show bliks are meaningful 3. Mitchell says Hare and Flew are wrong- Parable of the stanger says believersdo accept evidence to count against their faith 4. Flew respinds that Mitchell's parable is not a good analogy and that Hare still doesn't give RL meaning