Verificationism is one of the most influential theories of meaning. In this video, I explain what verificationism is and examine some of its consequences.
Excellent video. However, I have a question about the verification condition of a statement. Does 'verification condition' denote the experiences one must have to verify the statement (e.g. in the case of 'It's raining' feeling drops of rain is the experience that verifies the statement) AND what one must do to have those experiences (e.g. going outside the house)? Alternatively, does it merely denote the experiences one must have to verify the statement? Just to clarify my questions, if you answer yes to the first question, the relevent verification condition would read something like this: 'If you go outside the house you will experience drops of rain'. If you answer yes to the second question the relevent verification condition would read something like: 'You will experience drops of rain'. Thanks ps, if you don't have the time to answer this don't worry
I'm not a big fan of logical positivism but I really like philosophy of science. I prefer Karl Popper's falsifiability but it is very similar in some ways like when you say something is verifiable in principle, it's very much similar to if something is falsifiable, only in the affirmative. If you're looking for ideas for new videos maybe do one on falsifiability or the problem of induction because they're very much related to this.
@@jimmyfaulkner1855 It assumes that while you can't truly confirm a theory, you can truly falsify it. Yet the proccess of trying to falsify a theory is just as incomplete as the process of trying to confirm it.
@@rss2729 Let's say that we have the hypothesis "all swans are white". A falsificationist will argue that it cannot be verified, but it can be falsified by finding one black swan. However, this falsification itself relies on the assumption that we found a black swan (for example, it may not be a swan). So verification and falsification rely on some assumptions, making both methods incomplete.
Great, clear and extremely helpful video. Couldn't have asked for more, thank you.
Love ya brother. Keep it up!!
I love logical beheviorism. I can't always use it, to analyse the world, but i would really like to...
Excellent video. However, I have a question about the verification condition of a statement. Does 'verification condition' denote the experiences one must have to verify the statement (e.g. in the case of 'It's raining' feeling drops of rain is the experience that verifies the statement) AND what one must do to have those experiences (e.g. going outside the house)? Alternatively, does it merely denote the experiences one must have to verify the statement?
Just to clarify my questions, if you answer yes to the first question, the relevent verification condition would read something like this: 'If you go outside the house you will experience drops of rain'.
If you answer yes to the second question the relevent verification condition would read something like: 'You will experience drops of rain'.
Thanks
ps, if you don't have the time to answer this don't worry
I hope you already figured it out
I'm not a big fan of logical positivism but I really like philosophy of science. I prefer Karl Popper's falsifiability but it is very similar in some ways like when you say something is verifiable in principle, it's very much similar to if something is falsifiable, only in the affirmative. If you're looking for ideas for new videos maybe do one on falsifiability or the problem of induction because they're very much related to this.
"I prefer Karl Popper's falsifiability"
I'm almost certain you changed your mind about that in the last 3 years since writing this comment :P
@@TheAljossha what’s wrong with Popper’s falsificationism?
@@jimmyfaulkner1855 It assumes that while you can't truly confirm a theory, you can truly falsify it. Yet the proccess of trying to falsify a theory is just as incomplete as the process of trying to confirm it.
@@TheAljossha Can you please explain the issue here?
@@rss2729 Let's say that we have the hypothesis "all swans are white". A falsificationist will argue that it cannot be verified, but it can be falsified by finding one black swan. However, this falsification itself relies on the assumption that we found a black swan (for example, it may not be a swan). So verification and falsification rely on some assumptions, making both methods incomplete.
I love hearing you lose your cool over behaviourism.