Verification Principle

• Logical Positivism


  The logical positivists (Vienna Circle) were a group of mathematicians, scientists and philosophers who met in Vienna in 20s and 30s. They analysed language to decide was was meaningful and worth discussing and what statements were empty. The logical positivists used the verification principle to assess if language was meaningful.
• Verification Principle

  A statement is meaningful if:

  It can be verified by empirical evidence, an actual experience.

  or

  It is tautological; it is true by definition
• Ayers Weak Verification Principle

  The weak verification principle also accepts statements that are verified in principle. Ayer lived before space travel but he suggested that if someone was to claim that mountains were on the other side of the moon we could in theory send a camera to prove/disprove that. Under the weak verification principle scientific, historical statements are not meaningless because they can be verified in theory. Ayer did say statements of God, ethics and art however cannot be verified in theory so are meaningless. He later rejected this idea, theory can verify anything.
• Ayers criticism of verification principle

  Ayer argued that this requirement of the verification principle means that some statements, e.g. historical statements such as ‘The Battle of Hastings was in 1066’ are also meaningless. This is an unacceptable consequence.
• John Hick - Eschatological verification

  Hick challenged Ayer’s rejection of religious claims being verifiable. He uses a parable of two travellers on a road to support his claim. They argue about whether or not the road leads to the celestial city or whether the road just ends. When they turn the final corner, and the celestial city is there (or not!) then one of them will be proved right. Hick is arguing that religious statements are meaningful eschatologically/ At the end of all things, it will be possible to verify God’s existence.
• Basil Mitchell's criticism of John Hick's eschatological defence from arguments against verification. 


  Mitchell argued that theists do not accept evidence that counts against their beliefs. Believers have to take care that religious beliefs are not just ‘vacuous formulae to which experience makes no difference and which makes no difference to life.’ So, arguing that religious claims are verifiable eschatologically makes no difference to life.
• The strong verification principle argues that since religious language cannot be verified by sense experience now, it cannot be talked about as true or false.
• Ayer's weak verification principle outlines which observations would make the statement verifiable and worth discussing. Religious language cannot be verified in principle and so is meaningless.
• The strong verification principle argues that 'God is good' is not a true by definition, it is not a tautology or an analytic statement and is therefore meaningless.
• The the verification principle assumes that only science can give meaning and knowledge about the world. But Brummer and D.Z. Phillips believe that sentences of faith, should not be treated in the same way as scientific statements.
• Swinburne uses a toys in cupboard analogy - toys come alive at night but return before anyone can see. He says that statements are not meaningless just because they cant be verified.
• Hick suggested that believers would be able to verify statements about God and Heaven in the afterlife.
• The logical positivists argue that the job of philosophy is not to decide the truth of a statement only whether it is worth discussing. The verification principle treats religious language like failed scientific assertions as it treats all language cognitively
• Verification principles arises from 2 key ideas

  1. Empiricism.
  2. Wittgenstein's preposition that for philosophy to move forward they must focus on language, as 'philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday'.
• The verification principle deems most religious language to be meaningless as they are neither empirically verifiable nor tautological.
• The verifications principles very preposition does not pass its own test as its preposition that things must either be tautologies or verifiable in principle is neither a tautology nor verifiable in principle. However Ayer disputed this by saying that the verification principle is a theory not a statement and us such does not need to pass the test.