Braithwaite R. B., Russell Bertrand, Waismann Friedrich. The Relevance of Psychology to Logic: A Symposium. Aristotelian Society. Verifiability · F. Waismann. In Gilbert Ryle & Antony Flew (eds.), Journal of The Principle of Lazerowitz – – Mind 46 () Friedrich Waismann. Verifiability (Part II of a symposium). Aristotelian Society, supplementary volume XIX (), pp. – – Volume
|Country:||Moldova, Republic of|
|Published (Last):||11 April 2006|
|PDF File Size:||20.61 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.40 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The truth of a statement can be defined in terms of its meaning in the following way. The iconoclasm of the logical positivists was based on this criterion of meaning, for according to the verifiability principle a great many of the sentences of traditional philosophy for example, “Reality is spiritual,” “The moral rightness of an action is a nonempirical property,” “Beauty is significant form,” “God created the world for the fulfillment veirfiability his purpose” must be cognitively meaningless.
Consequently, objections analogous to those already considered still apply: To eliminate components of this kind, R.
But if the property has never in fact been observed, how are we to know that it is observable? University of Notre Dame Press, Science Logic vedifiability Mathematics. This is the traditional doctrine of empiricism or positivism.
F. Waismann, Verifiability – PhilPapers
He allows, however, that statements “on the periphery” have their truth-values determined by experience. He held that a statement is verifiable, and hence meaningful, if one or more observation statements can be deduced from it, perhaps in conjunction with certain additional premises, without being deducible from these other premises alone.
In two important articles titled “Testability and Fruedrich —Carnap distinguished the testing of a sentence from its confirmation; a sentence is “testable” if we know of a particular procedure for waiskann, the carrying out of certain experiments that would confirm to some degree either the sentence or its negation.
Apparently what is meant is that the experiences in question must be logically possible. On Meaning and Verifiability.
Ayer – – Mind 45 The more detailed analysis of a semantic rule — that is, an account of how such rules function in a language — is a difficult matter that we need not attempt here. If the sentences in question express statements, the waidmann of the predicates that occur in them must be governed by semantic rules; how can these rules be known or explained to anyone else if the states of affairs which the sentences are supposed to describe are veirfiability experienceable in any way at all?
This article has no associated abstract. La SalleIL: We can now see why many present-day philosophers say that the verifiability principle is simply a characterization of an empirical sentence.
They may have believed that it is factually impossible for us to have experiences radically different in kind from those that we now have, but they did not present the verifiability principle as stating or implying this. No keywords specified fix it. From the Publisher via CrossRef no proxy Setup an account with your veeifiability in order to access resources via your University’s proxy server Configure custom proxy use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy.
What is the Reason for This Rule? Reprinted in Logic without Metaphysics. On What There Is. In order to understand the status of the verifiability principle, in the form in which it was held by the logical positivists, the following considerations are relevant: Schlick, for example, said that the verifiability principle is “nothing but a simple statement of the way in which meaning is actually assigned to propositions, both in everyday life and in science. What is the Verifiability Criterion a Criterion Of?: In its later formulations it is presented simply as a criterion for determining whether a sentence is cognitively or factually meaningful.
Pragmatism, as presented by C. The conditions are, however, insufficient for this purpose. This idea, which may be called “the truth theory of meaning,” had been employed and stated by philosophers before the discussions of the Vienna circle. Modern Language Association http: This was sometimes called the requirement of “weak verifiability.
Request removal from index. But even if such experiences do occur, and are of such a kind that they can be associated, via semantic rules, with the descriptive expressions of a language, this will not provide an exception to the requirement laid down by the verifiability principle — it will, in fact, be simply an extension of that requirement to types of sentences that formerly could not be understood as expressing statements of fact.
Friedrich Waismann, Verifiability – PhilPapers
Then, copy and paste the text into your bibliography or works cited list. One reply to this objection is that a criterion that determines a certain class of statements cannot have the same logical status as the statements in question. Find it on Scholar. David Rynin – – Waaismann This position seems to be simply incoherent. The earliest presentations of the verifiability principle identified the meaning of a sentence with the logical possibility of verifying the corresponding statement, and apparently, in the last analysis, with the occurrence of certain experiences.
Thus, according to this view, the meaning, or rather a meaning, of the term length is given by specifying a set of operations to be carried out with a measuring rod. Following the later work of Wittgenstein it is now widely held among philosophers that to ask whether a sentence is meaningful is simply to ask whether the words that compose the sentence are used according to the rules or practice of a language.
Find it on Scholar. Retrieved December 28, from Encyclopedia.
Hence, like Ludwig Wittgenstein in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicusthey held that most of the statements to be found in traditional philosophy are not false but nonsensical. This article has no associated abstract.