The Verification principle Flashcards
humes fork
- relations of ideas and matters of fact (analytic and synthetic) statements are the only meaningful statements
- rel texts are neither so are useless and should be burned
- they contain knowledge not worth knowing
- ‘commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion’
explain relation of ideas
- apriori
- analytic
- a bachelor is an unmarried man
- necessary relationship
explain matters of fact
- aposteriori
- synthetic
- not necessarily true, but can be verified by what we can see in the world –> EMPIRICALLY TESTED
- possible relationship
- all bears are brown
logical positivism in the vienna circle
- concerned with the relationship between the use of language and knowledge, rejecting non cog claims as meaningless
- believed that theological interpretations of events and experiences belonged in the past, in an unenlightened world when god was used as an explanation for everything that science had not yet mastered
- any discussion about anything that could not be logically be proven to be true was meaningless
why was the verification principle developed
- LPs argued that language should be scientific and give us information about the factual world
- argued for an empirical view of language, and should report on what was seen with 5 senses
- aj ayer developed verification principle
what is the verification principle
a statement is held to be meaningful if and only if it is analytically or empirically verifiable
how does the VP work
- verify if a statement is analytically verified
- verify is a statement is empirically verified
- if it is verifiable by either of these two it is meaningful, if not NO MEANING (non sensical)
‘a statement which cannot be conclusively verified is simply devoid of meaning’
VP and religious language
- God exists is not analytically or empirically verified
- god does not exist is not analytically or empirically verified
- this is because the statement is synthetic, and any empirical evidence used to prove it has unknown conclusions
- therefore, speaking about God is meaningless due to the VP,
- aj ayer: ‘god is a metaphysical term’
why does ayer think ‘god talk’ is meaningless
- god cannot be factually observed or logically deduced
- rel language seems to be telling us something about the world but isnt
- has no factual or logical content at all, doesnt communicate anything
- this extends to all religious language like the afterlife, soul (metaphysical assertion), religious experience (cannot be validated empirically)
- however 50 years rejected LTL and LP –> ‘logical positivism died a long time ago’
problems with logical positivism
- all statements of preference become meaningless
- you cannot prove some statements physically (checking ALL ravens are black)
- cannot say historical events occured because you wouldnt personally experience them
strong verification principle
- verification in practice
- verified conclusively using empirical evidence
weak verification principle
- verifiable in principle
- ik what i would have to do to verify it –> possible to gather evidence for it
- meaningful is statement is probable
is humes fork right
yes: religion is not knowledge as you cannot understand it
no: there is a metaphysical way to look at religion, diff type of knowledge
What are the strengths of the verification p
- simplifies language
- spend time on what is meaningful —> cuts through stalemate of atheism and theism as the conversation is not meaningful and is avoided altogether
- useful in scientific study
- supported by Locke and Hume, truth and knowledge known by senses
- weak verification allows for historical and preference statements
- fits in with a scientific understanding of reality —> only talk about what is in reality
Weaknesses of the verification principle
- strong vp is too rigid, does not allow for historical or preference language —> consent language is ignored here too
- VP fails its own rules —> this is why it is rejected as a theory for the meaning of language
- universal statements and scientific statements cannot be verified as we cannot physically prove it (all humans are mortal)
- comparative statements are meaningless as opinions cannot be verified empirically or logically
- eschatological verification gives meaning to religious statements
- RL can be verified in principle using evidence (religious experience etc)
Describe John hick’s parable of the celestial city (defence of religious language)
- two men travelling on road, one believes leads to celestial city and one does not think there is a destination
- neither has been this way before and do not know what is around the corner
- one sees journey as pilgrimage to celestial city but other sees as aimless ramble
- the right one will become apparent when they turn the corner
Meaning of hicks celestial city
- at the end if time we can know if there is life after death
- synthetically verified, cognitive and meaningful
- verification in PRINCIPLE
Strengths of the eschatological verification
- fits with Christian theology, but he was also a pluralist
- directly targets Ayers theory by showing that god can be verified in principle
- does not need to undermine the VP but only show that religious language is verifiable
Weaknesses of eschatological verification
- only works if we have a physical or spiritual view of the afterlife —> reincarnation? Where you forget your previous life
- the celestial city is still a possibility, not proven —> not justifiable in practice
- verification might not be appropriate for viewing religious language (faith and Kierkegaard)
‘Religion can adequately respond to the challenges of the verification principle’
For
- coherence theory of truth: meaningful in a different way, anselm and rel experience can verify religious language
- understanding limitations of humans allows us to arrive at an answer, basis of discovery
- Hick’s eschatological principle, will know when you die, verified in principle by weak VP
Against
- not analytic or synthetic so meaningless
- does not improve upon physical issues, like science does
- does not correspond to something in reality
- unknown conclusions, not a basis of meaning
- early Wittgenstein says we should be silent about god
- it is only possibly true, not verified in practice
‘Ayer is right all god talk is meaningless’
Agree
- it does not prove physical things like science, religion historically limited scientific progress
- rel ex is ineffable, religious believers think you cannot talk about god
- does not correspond to something in reality
- rel believers does not let anything falsify their belief, causing it to stagnate
Disagree
- strengthens faith for rel believers
- talking helps arrive at truth —> understanding from basis of limitation
- miracles and rel exp are meaningful empirically
- VP is false itself
