Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Is the verification principle self-refuting?

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 11:15:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Discuss.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
WillYouMarryMe
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 11:18:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 11:15:06 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Discuss.

That's generally the most common objection to it.

You can't verify the proposition that a proposition is only meaningful if it can be verified.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 10:48:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 11:15:06 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Discuss.

Good luck refuting Newton's Flaming Laser Sword =p. It'll cleave your head before you utter a syllable.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 3:10:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 10:48:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/21/2015 11:15:06 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Discuss.

Good luck refuting Newton's Flaming Laser Sword =p. It'll cleave your head before you utter a syllable.

I hated hated hated that article. The surest way to discredit your own argument is to show your own ignorance of the position you are attacking. The author clearly did not understand the Chinese Room argument. On top of that I just hate that name- it's like he tried to come up with the most pretentiously ironic but unironic name possible.

I also just don't understand what the "laser sword (I can barely stand typing that out) has to say about ethics or political philosophy. The author seemed to want to dismiss these because we can't study these scientifically, but guess what- we still need to make ethical and political decisions so we need to talk about ethics and politics.

Moreover I don't see how the rule actually DOES mean we can forget about ethics. Ethical propositions do have consequences in the world; these consequences just don't relate to propositions the same way propositions about the natural world do.

Finally the concept just stifles thinking about issues that direct scientific research. If morality IS part of the natural world, we actually need to be disputing philosophical propositions about morality to uncover where we could look to find morality in the world. Searle actually advocates for avenues of scientific research based on the conclusions of the Chinese Room- if it turns out that these avenues are fruitful we have wasted a lot of time and resources by ignoring good philosophy.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 3:38:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 3:10:54 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:48:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/21/2015 11:15:06 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Discuss.

Good luck refuting Newton's Flaming Laser Sword =p. It'll cleave your head before you utter a syllable.

I hated hated hated that article. The surest way to discredit your own argument is to show your own ignorance of the position you are attacking. The author clearly did not understand the Chinese Room argument. On top of that I just hate that name- it's like he tried to come up with the most pretentiously ironic but unironic name possible.

I also just don't understand what the "laser sword (I can barely stand typing that out) has to say about ethics or political philosophy. The author seemed to want to dismiss these because we can't study these scientifically, but guess what- we still need to make ethical and political decisions so we need to talk about ethics and politics.

Moreover I don't see how the rule actually DOES mean we can forget about ethics. Ethical propositions do have consequences in the world; these consequences just don't relate to propositions the same way propositions about the natural world do.

Finally the concept just stifles thinking about issues that direct scientific research. If morality IS part of the natural world, we actually need to be disputing philosophical propositions about morality to uncover where we could look to find morality in the world. Searle actually advocates for avenues of scientific research based on the conclusions of the Chinese Room- if it turns out that these avenues are fruitful we have wasted a lot of time and resources by ignoring good philosophy.

I was making a joke...
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 5:48:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yes.

The principle states that every proposition must be verifiable in order to be meaningful.

Yet you can't verify the principle. So according to its own logic, it itself is meaningless

It really annoys me how logical positivists take the verification principle's veracity as an axiom when the decision to do so is exactly that - a subjective decision.
A J Ayer is guilty of this, his paper on 'God-talk is nonsensical' just takes the verification principle as a self-evident axiom and seems naive enough to suppose that everyone will share this acceptance of a self-refuting premise.