In part 1 (http://phenomenal-philosophy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/much-of-what-we-say-meaningless-part-1.html), we introduced the Logical Positivism movement and its main idea - the Verification Principle. An apparently impressive idea, its critics exposed its weakness to such an extent that the theory was discredited by the 1970's. In part 2 we will discuss these weaknesses.
OBJECTIONS
1.A major problem with the Verification Principle is that it is self refuting: 'A statement is only literally meaningful if it is a tautology (analytical statements) or can be empirically verified', yet we cannot verify this proposition empirically nor is it a tautology. Could we even verify it in principle (remember Ayer's hills on the moon?)? I found this funny video while attempting to search for the answer, do take a look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ags_M3ILszo
2. Another major issue is that it rules out historical statements, as even though there is evidence (books, letters, official documents etc) there is no way of empirically verifying them. To say that 'the Battle of Waterloo took place in 1815' is a meaningless statement as there is no one alive who could claim to have experienced it.
3. Think about the statement 'I love you'. It is an unverifiable emotion, and would be ruled out as meaningless. We could not definitely define what it means to love someone, but when we make the claim it is understood as meaningful, so it meaningful in principle.
4. Ethical and moral statements are said to be meaningless. No sense experience could verify the statement 'do not kill'. However, such statements influence the shaping up of religious and secular laws and some of these statements are considered for the most part universalisable.
5. We cannot absolutely verify the laws of science. No finite number of observations can conclusively prove that 'Gravity causes an object to fall back to the ground'.
RESPONSES: DOES THE THEORY WORK?
A.J Ayer in 'Language, Truth and Logic' suggested a 'strong' and a 'weak' form of the principle. Strong Verification deals with statements whose truths raise no doubt 'A circle is round'. Weak Verification involves statements where there is no absolute certainty, only but there is a strong likelihood of truth due to evidence existing e.g. the sun rises every morning. The philosopher in you might say that separating the principle into two forms help deal with 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' forms of truth. The idea of verification in principle (hills on the other side of the moon) would also be used as a response.
None of this however solves the problems. One objection that could be raised is that the positivist might see religious language as meaningless but the scholar John Hick has argued that many religious claims are historical, and since weak verification would allow historical statements due to the existence of evidence, then at least in principle a statement such as 'Jesus rose from the dead' is meaningful.
If we knew what would in principle verify a statement, then we could say it is meaningful. However, we can object to this because in theory virtually any statement could be verifiable if it were known, in principle, what would verify it. Thus, much of what the movement claimed as meaningless, such as Metaphysics, may be shown to be meaningful, it is just that we cannot know what will verify it.
You could also accuse Logical Positivism of assuming that you could apply the scientific principle of empirical observation to the use of language, saying that a proposition must make a claim that observation could verify. This denies that human beings use language in a rich variety of ways, such as creating great works of literature; we don't just use language to evaluate what is right and wrong. It also assumes that observation best verifies a statement, but you could easily object to this claim, as we can easily be deceived by our senses. Richard Dawkins talks about the power of the brain*, processing information and creating an image which could easily be misleading, quoting the illusion of the **'Necker's Cube'
 |
| The Necker's Cube |
Perhaps the biggest problem is that accepting the theory's criteria makes the theory itself meaningless. We have no way of showing that it is meaningful, no statement of logic, no piece of empirical data, no hypothesis we can test. It is an example of the kind of statement which the first positivists wished to evaluate the meaning of; statements which were accepted almost axiomatically (self evident truth which need no proof).
Thus the movement failed to the extent that even A.J Ayer later said that most of what was claimed by this movement was 'false'. It still retains an important place in the history of Analytical Philosophy due to its large impact and because it influenced further movements.
For both parts Sources: 'Language, Truth and Logic' by A.J Ayer
'A2 Religious Studies' by Sarah K. Tyler and Gordon Reid
'The Thinkers Guide to God' by Peter Vardy and Julius Arliss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Necker_cube.svg
http://askaphilosopher.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/does-the-verification-principle-fail-by-its-own-criterion/
*In the God Delusion, Dawkins talks about the power of the brain when objecting to the view that Religious Experience justifies belief in God.
** Find out more about this illusion http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/supersenses/necker.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment