Verification

In the short time since I joined these discussions I have run into a couple of individuals who appear to have issues with the notion of verification. So merely to satisfy my own curiosity, what role does verifiability play in determining the truth of claims, where truth of course is determined by the relation of the claim to reality?

If Jobn claims that it is raining where he is, and Joe who is standing there with him says that it is not raining, how is the truth value of each of these claims to be determined?

[x4btorz]

The first thought that comes to mind about determining the truth-value of a proposition would have to be through [fallable] justification. For example, if you saw water falling from the sky and felt the cold, wet drops upon your own self, you could deduce that it is more probable, insofar as you can conject, that it is raining.

[Geoff332]

The verification principle is essentially invalid. This was the problem with positivism and the whole vienna circle. This is probably best represented by Ayer and forms a substantive critique of all 'objectivist' philosophies.

Basically, positivism argued that the meaning (truth) of a statement lies in the method of verification. It generally splits into two classes -- necessary and empirical statements. Mathematical equations are example of a necessary statement, where you can prove the truth of the statement within the axioms of mathematics. Empirical statements can be tested against experience for their truth value. The verifiability principle is simply: no statement can make a claim to truth unless that claim can be verified.

There are several problems with this -- and I'm not really aware of all of them.

The first and simplest one is that experience is necessarily subjective and the logical leap from subjective to objective knowledge is never satisfactorily argued (in fact, positivism tends to assume that experience is objective, which is necessarily false).

Secondly, positivism rests on a strict materialist ontology. Unfortunately, one cannot verify materialism (or any other metaphysical system for that matter). So, according to positivism, one should reject the materialist onotology -- but doing so means that positivist notions of verification are no longer sensible. For positivism to work, one has to assume a particular metaphysical position; but this gives basis for not assuming a different metaphysical position -- such as Cartesean dualism.

Thirdly, the verification principle itself cannot be verified. Because it cannot be verified, one must reject it. Take out the verification principle and positivism has no basis upon which to establish truth.

Fourthly, Hume's critique of inductive logic is never addressed. The problem of induction lies in the making the leap from a number of singular observations to a general statement of truth. Hume pointed out that one cannot be certain that the future will resemble the past. It is an unproven assumption that is not subject to verification (more specifically, he shows that all of the arguments for inductive certainty are necessarily circular).

All of these problems are related and basically end up at the same point: any thesis of verification cannot be verified. Verification is not capable of producing certain knowledge.

The most common modern answer to this is the falsification principle, made popular by Karl Popper. He argued that any claim to scientific knowledge must be able to be proven untrue. This can be illustrated by the statement "all swans are white." To prove this true, I would have to find ever swan that ever lived (or would ever live) and see that it was white. However, observing one black swan would prove it false. Any scienific statement cannot be said to be true with certainty, but merely that it has not yet been falsified. Statements that cannot be falsified are not science (whether they are knowledge or not is another question).

[Impenitent]

well said Geoff

Nice strawman.. fortunately for the question nothing in it relies on positivism.

However it is an easy strawman to refute:

1. Are you reading this post?
2. Do you exist?
3. Do true statments exist?
4. Does truth have meaning?
5. Does language have meaning?

Any positive response to any of these immediately denies the claims of the strawman position.

Falsification, is a form of verification, though I do understand the distinction you are making here. The ability to verify or falsify, at least in principle, is necessary to any endeavor in which truth is an objective.

The problem to which I referred, was that there are those who deny the possibility of either, of anything at all against which claims can be compared.

[castille]

I screw verification.

Emotional hype, ignorance, and mass hysteria are my methods of debate.

I take examples from Adolf Hitler and socialist protests. "Say NO to America; say NO to capitalism; say YES to national unity!". "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer!"

It doesn't win points, but it sure wins you hearts. Thats how those 1000 college students got driven into beating up overseas students; one man, one emotion, mass hysteria.


Yes you academics can debate with your proper methods and sip latte, but you are the ones being executed and purged from power.

[m5lange1]

Just a question here.

It is a fact (a truth) that I loved my mother.

I would be hard pressed to provide solid evidence.

Would that be a truth that is unvarifiable?

[Impenitent]

that is a subjective truth for you...

there is no objective truth

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
that is a subjective truth for you...

there is no objective truth<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


Which if true, then it is necessarily false. Damn self defeating positions..

There is no position from the subjectivity claim from which to make any true, in the sense of accurate, statements about reality, therefore by the very nature of the subjectivity hypothesis, any claims about reality must be false, and furthermore unfounded.

Personally I prefer truth, reality, and objectivity.. I see no reason to deny them or create self-defeating positions.

[Geoff332]

If I am wrong, then you will tell me exactly how the verification principle itself can be objectively verified. Your refutations don't work. The first two have all been addressed by Wittgenstein -- in essence, can I objectively prove I am reading this post? Or can I merely confirm that it is my subjective experience. Given that it is necessarily my experience, then it is inherently subjective. The latter three are all positions to which can be answered in several ways. In short, none of the answers are given.

It is interesting that you say, "I prefer truth, reality, and objectivity". While personal preference may be interesting and useful, it is also unquestionably subjective. If that is the basis of your support for "truth, reality and objectivity" then it sounds very much like a self-defeating position.

Your basic argument seems to rely on the very circular falacy that Hume critiqued: thre must be objective truth, becuase if there is not objective truth then there cannot be objective truth. Unfortunately, that proves nothing except that you (subjectively) assume that there is objective truth. Hume's arguments are quite a bit more sophisticated and he does not deny objective truth (rather he denies the posibility of deriving necessary truth from inductive logic).

All of this is secondary: demonstrate to me how the verification principle itself can be objectively verified (without reference to anything subjective) and I will happily conceed you are right.

[Impenitent]

objectivity, truth and reality are imposed...

but you don't want reality, truth, or objectivity; you want everyone to see the world the same way you do...

that agreement is imposed by your interpretation...

people don't work like that...

Geoff,

I can best answer your question by pointing out that it, as with your previous post, relied upon the false premise that I am relying on the positivists verifiablity principle. This is why I noted the use of strawman tactics previously.

Fortunately for us, Wittgenstein refuted all that he had written, saving the rest of us the trouble.. :)

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

It is interesting that you say, "I prefer truth, reality, and objectivity". While personal preference may be interesting and useful, it is also unquestionably subjective. If that is the basis of your support for "truth, reality and objectivity" then it sounds very much like a self-defeating position.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Clearly my preference for truth, reality and objectivity is not itself evidence for truth, reality and objectivity. Nothing I said so much as hinted at that notion. I simply noted that unlike some, when faced with the choice to recognize reality, objectivity and truth, else delve into illusions and irrationality, I chose the former over the latter, nothing more.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Your basic argument seems to rely on the very circular falacy that Hume critiqued: thre must be objective truth, becuase if there is not objective truth then there cannot be objective truth.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
All of this is secondary: demonstrate to me how the verification principle itself can be objectively verified (without reference to anything subjective) and I will happily conceed you are right.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

It is quite difficult to defend against such strawman tactics, so I will not bother doing so. I have not offered the arguments you try to attribute to me.

BTW in offering what you believe to be refutations, by claiming that X is true, no matter what X is, you are necessarily accepting as a primary premise that objective truth and reality must exist, otherwise words have no meaning at all and the claims you offer cannot have any truth value at all either. So either they have a truth value, which if true and appropos then they would count as evidence against the existence of truth and reality, else false and they do not count as evidence against the existence of truth and reality but still assume the existence of both, or else they are without truth value which means that they cannot be refutations at all, nor can they have any meaning.

[m5lange1]

In response to my query...

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
m5lange1 Posted on 02-19-2004 09:05 AM
  Just a question here.

It is a fact (a truth) that I loved my mother.

I would be hard pressed to provide solid evidence.

Would that be a truth that is unvarifiable? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Impenitent Posted on 02-19-2004 11:34 AM
  that is a subjective truth for you...

there is no objective truth  <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

That is the view I take, Impenitenient, for the very reason that there is a way to answer my question.

Actually I was more curious how someone who believed only in verifiable truth would respond to this question.

Any takers?

[Geoff332]

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.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I can (and have) refuted the idea that we can have certain, objective knowledge 9the whole point of objectivity). <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Sigh.. unfortunately thus far you have not in fact refuted anything at all, but rather have offered self-defeating and circular arguments which you have offered to refute positions not taken. So at very best you are separated from actual refutations by two degrees.

Also you have seemingly just ignored the actual refutations of the arguments you have given, in fact you have falsely claimed that those arguments have not been addressed.

Thus far you have not gotten out of the hole of meaninglessness and the absence of truth values for your own statements, given the denial of truth and reality.

[Geoff332]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)

Thus far you have not gotten out of the hole of meaninglessness and the absence of truth values for your own statements, given the denial of truth and reality.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I am waiting for an argument -- any argument -- to support your defence of truth. Thus far, we have "any argument that denies truth must be false." While this is may be characterised as a truth claim, it does not qualify as an argument.

Either way, I see no argument from you: merely these undefended assertions. Give me an argument or not, it's up to you. But in the absence of an argument, I really see no reason to take your assertions seriously.

LOL! When no other tactic works, deny what has been in front of you, eh? Well there is no truth so we cannot verify it right? :)

The series of events has thus far been this:
1. I asked a question.
2. Others, including you, asserted that truth cannot exist (or is subjective, which is identical)
3. I pointed out that such a position is self-defeating.
4. You now deny that any such argument has been given and try to switch the burden of proof onto me.

One need not offer up a different system in order to demonstrate that one position is fatally flawed.

I agree that in the absence of any argument, it is not rational to simply blindly accept the dubious position. In this instance the most dubious of the positions is that truth (and reality necessarily) cannot exist.

[Impenitent]

you believe that subjective truth is self defeating? is the egocentric predicament self defeating? that is all one has... no "objectivity" can exist...

you have offered no argument to demonstrate this self defeating nature, furthermore if you deny subjective truth you do not automatically prove that objective truth exists or is even possible... reality is of necessity subjective and private...

[Geoff332]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
LOL! When no other tactic works, deny what has been in front of you, eh? Well there is no truth so we cannot verify it right? :)

The series of events has thus far been this:
1. I asked a question.
2. Others, including you, asserted that truth cannot exist (or is subjective, which is identical)
3. I pointed out that such a position is self-defeating.
4. You now deny that any such argument has been given and try to switch the burden of proof onto me.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Now who's presenting a straw man.
1. Agreed.
2. Disagree. I never said there was no such thing as 'truth'. I said (and have repeatedly said) that there is no way to derive certain knowledge of objective truth of claims from any principle of verification.
3. Half agree. I agree that you pointed it out. However, I also said that is not an argument, but an assertion of your preferences (you prefer X to be true).
4. Agree -- you have made no argument. You offered a statement of preference, rather than an argument. When asked to offer an argument, you restated it as a circular tautology (There must be objective truth, because otherwise there is no objective truth). So that's where we are waiting.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I agree that in the absence of any argument, it is not rational to simply blindly accept the dubious position. In this instance the most dubious of the positions is that truth (and reality necessarily) cannot exist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Once again, you are stating your position as a statement of preference, not as a rational argument.

[m5lange1]

Still trying to squeeze in here among pretty heavy rehtoric with a simple question.

For any who believe truth MUST be verifiable how do you verify truths such as...

I loved my mother.

Is this one too hard to answer? The reason I am being persistant is that it pretty much sums up why I believe in unverifiable truth.