If I understand your question, the answer seems so obvious. . . . . but of course it isn't. My mistake.
Faith, Sacred Writings, and Intuition, are ways to verify that your verification theory does not accept.
Problems With The Verification Theory of Logical Positivism
- Thread starter BeHereNow
- Start date
Faith, Sacred Writings, and Intuition, are ways to verify that your verification theory does not accept.
Some problems as mentioned by wikipedia:
A response to the second criticism was provided by A. J. Ayer in Language, Truth and Logic, in which he sets out the distinction between "strong" and "weak" verification. "A proposition is said to be verifiable, in the strong sense of the term, if, and only if, its truth could be conclusively established by experience." (Ayer 1946:50) It is this sense of verifiable that causes the problem of verification with negative existential claims and positive universal claims. However, the weak sense of verification states that a proposition is "verifiable... if it is possible for experience to render it probable".
[Ed: The experience religionists have experienced, render that god is possible, and therefore has been 'verified', by certain philosophical standards.]
~ ~ ~
Early critics of logical positivism said that its fundamental tenets could not themselves be formulated in a way that was clearly consistent. The verifiability criterion of meaning did not seem verifiable; but neither was it simply a logical tautology, since it had implications for the practice of science and the empirical truth of other statements.
~ ~ ~
Karl Popper was a well-known critic of logical positivism, who published the book Logik der Forschung in 1934In it he argued that the positivists' criterion of verifiability was too strong a criterion for science, and should be replaced by a criterion of falsifiability. Popper thought that falsifiability was a better criterion because it did not invite the philosophical problems inherent in verifying an inductive inference, and it allowed statements from the physical sciences which seemed scientific but which did not meet the verification criterion.
~ ~ ~
Here is a criticism, not of the verification theory itself, but of Logical Positivism in general:
Most philosophers consider logical positivism to be, as John Passmore expressed it, "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes." By the late 1970s, its ideas were so generally recognized to be seriously defective that one of its own chief proponents, A. J. Ayer, could say in a interview: "I suppose the most important [defect]...was that nearly all of it was false." It retains an important place in the history of Analytic philosophy as the antecedent of movements which continue today, such as Constructive empiricism, Positivism and Postpositivism.
~ ~ ~ ~
Comments on the verification theory:
The theory has radical consequences for traditional philosophy as it, if correct, would render much of past philosophical work meaningless, for example metaphysics and ethics. It is important to note that the theory is meant to be applied only to synthetic claims (i.e. claims about the world), rather than analytical ones.
A response to the second criticism was provided by A. J. Ayer in Language, Truth and Logic, in which he sets out the distinction between "strong" and "weak" verification. "A proposition is said to be verifiable, in the strong sense of the term, if, and only if, its truth could be conclusively established by experience." (Ayer 1946:50) It is this sense of verifiable that causes the problem of verification with negative existential claims and positive universal claims. However, the weak sense of verification states that a proposition is "verifiable... if it is possible for experience to render it probable".
[Ed: The experience religionists have experienced, render that god is possible, and therefore has been 'verified', by certain philosophical standards.]
~ ~ ~
Early critics of logical positivism said that its fundamental tenets could not themselves be formulated in a way that was clearly consistent. The verifiability criterion of meaning did not seem verifiable; but neither was it simply a logical tautology, since it had implications for the practice of science and the empirical truth of other statements.
~ ~ ~
Karl Popper was a well-known critic of logical positivism, who published the book Logik der Forschung in 1934In it he argued that the positivists' criterion of verifiability was too strong a criterion for science, and should be replaced by a criterion of falsifiability. Popper thought that falsifiability was a better criterion because it did not invite the philosophical problems inherent in verifying an inductive inference, and it allowed statements from the physical sciences which seemed scientific but which did not meet the verification criterion.
~ ~ ~
Here is a criticism, not of the verification theory itself, but of Logical Positivism in general:
Most philosophers consider logical positivism to be, as John Passmore expressed it, "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes." By the late 1970s, its ideas were so generally recognized to be seriously defective that one of its own chief proponents, A. J. Ayer, could say in a interview: "I suppose the most important [defect]...was that nearly all of it was false." It retains an important place in the history of Analytic philosophy as the antecedent of movements which continue today, such as Constructive empiricism, Positivism and Postpositivism.
~ ~ ~ ~
Comments on the verification theory:
The theory has radical consequences for traditional philosophy as it, if correct, would render much of past philosophical work meaningless, for example metaphysics and ethics. It is important to note that the theory is meant to be applied only to synthetic claims (i.e. claims about the world), rather than analytical ones.
Correct. In as much as they are claimed to provide such verifiable evidence.
Which brings us back to my original question: Since that belief system attempts to dictate how we should behave, live, think then why should we subscribe (or even pay attention) to it unless or until it can be shown to have any validity?
We are supposed to subscribe to this belief (or at least accept its tenets and restrictions) yet it cannot be shown that it's worth subscribing to until one accepts "verification" that is only available once it has already been subscribed to.
You see the problem?
Your belief system does the same thing.
You want others to live, not by their belief system, but by yours.
You do not show that your belief system is worth subscribing to, until or unless we subscribe to your belief system.
That is the problem I see.
You think your belief system is special.
It is not.
You think Science supports your belief system, it does not.
Science is ambivilent towards religion.
That is a fact.
Scientists who are religionists, see no conflict, because they have a factual view of Science.
You see a conflict, because you do not have a factual view of Science.
We will agree that religionists, and scienctists create conflicts.
People to people, yes, conflicts.
Science to Religion, no conflict.
Incorrect.
I see. So theists ignore everything science shows us?
Special? In that it actually works? Yep.
So what "belief system" do you think I'm operating under?
You're assuming something here, I'm not quite sure what.
Except that science has shown religion to be incorrect time and time again.
Oh, in your belief system, no explaination is needed.
I see that Atheists want religions to stop 'preaching'.
I see that no religionist, not even the Seven Day Adventists, has come to my door and said 'convert or be punished'.
There are extremists, of every color, Atheist included, that are life threatening, not a uniquness of religions.
What?
Theists sometimes accept what science has shown us, sometime not.
Atheists sometimes accept, sometimes not.
Scientists sometimes accept, sometimes not, what other scientists claim.
Some of the greatest discoveries of science came from objectors to the status quo.
It only works, because you say it works.
No verification outside your own system.
That's the way it works.
All belief systems work, to those on the inside.
Of course your works for you.
Mine works for me.
Yours does not work for me, mine does not work for you.
One that requires the veirifcation theory of Logical Positivism be applied to determine if statements are meaningful.
Am I incorrect?
I'm assuming you think the rules of Science, must apply to other disciplines.
I'm assuming you think that since the rules of science work for science, they MUST work for religion as well.
They MUST work for how people live their daily life.
Science has shows science to be incorrect time and time again.
I assume you do not disagree.
Are we then to throw out Science?
When Science has shown Religion to be incorrect, Religion has changed its views. There are exceptions of course. These are not so much 'Religion', as Religionists.
Many sects of the major religions have no objections to the Scientifically factual nature of evolution.
Science tells how, Religion tells why, that is how they view things.
Some people claim Science has shown things, when it has not.
Science has never shown there is no god.
Science has never shown there are supernatural occurances.
A lack of evidence is not evidence.
The business of Science is the natural world.
Science makes no comments on morals, ethics, what we can call value judgements.
It makes no comments about any god, except to say it can make no comment.
Is Islam more correct than Christianity?
Science makes no comment.
Are Islam and Christianity both incorrect?
Science makes no comment.
You misread: I simply meant that I don't want others to live by my belief system. Which was your claim.
Luck you.
So theists are ambivalent? Undecided? Can't make their minds up?
Right. And all the technology in the world is an illusion.
Evidently wrong, since you're using a computer to argue with me. Wait! maybe you're just sending your messages through "god" and I'm simply reading them on my PC.
So why the comment "science is ambivalent"?
You're also (apparently) assuming I don't have a "factual view of science".
One more time: YOUR system can only be shown to be "true" IF and ONLY IF one subscribes to it. This is not true of science.
Science is regarded as a self-correcting system.
After some extremely long periods of time.
And some do. Vehement objections.
Correction: religion claims to tell "why".
If science could show there are "supernatural occurrences then they wouldn't be supernatural.
Agreed, lack of evidence is not evidence. But lack of evidence after so long and so many claims, reduces the chance of there being anything worth investigating. It eventually comes down to weight of probability.
I can certainly reasonably assume that your belief system includes Atheism.
That is not a part of Science, so your belief system goes beyond Science.
Atheism can only be shown to be true, if, and only if, one subscribes to it.
The verification theory that is the basis for most Athiests, same.
~ ~ ~
It seems ironic that the common argument against Evolution, is the low probablity.
And here you are, making that same agrument against religion.
~ ~ ~
You can have the last word.
This would be false.
Since science provides no evidence for god how does my lack of belief in god go beyond science?
I see no reason to subscribe to something for which there is no evidence.
Really?