Well, let's see if you can actually put an argument together.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by truth of course is determined by the relation of the claim to reality<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I assume that you believe that statement to be a true claim. Therefore, please demonstrate how this claim is related to reality.
Secondly, one does not need to reject the thesis of objective reality to reject the thesis of verification. to make that argument you would have to be confusing the 'fact of things' with the 'knowledge of things'. I can (and have) refuted the idea that we can have certain, objective knowledge 9the whole point of objectivity). This is the critical difference between pure positivism and logical positivism which you seem to have missed. Falsification does not achieve verification with any level of certainty.
let me make it nice and simple. There are three elements:
1. Reality (which verification claims is objective)
2. Claims about reality (the truth of which depends on their correspondance to reality).
3. Knowledge of the truth of claims (which verification claims is objective).
I have argued -- without refutation, or even reply -- that there is no case for claiming that knowledge of truth claims can be certain. Since all three of these points are truth claims they are included in this critique and are subject to refutation. If I am wrong on all three (which I may well be), then there necessarily must be an argument to demonstrate I am wrong.
This is no straw man, this is the crux of epistemology.