# Verificationism



## steven-nemes (Mar 15, 2009)

What is, briefly and plainly stated, "verificationism" and how do you respond to it?

I often read of some statements that are not empirically verifiable and yet are clearly meaningful; what is one such statement?


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 15, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> I often read of some statements that are not empirically verifiable and yet are clearly meaningful; what is one such statement?




One example: "In the beginning, God created. . . ."

Meaningful, in fact it is the foundation of all meaning experienced by creation, but nobody can empirically verify it.


----------



## steven-nemes (Mar 15, 2009)

victorbravo said:


> One example: "In the beginning, God created. . . ."
> 
> Meaningful, in fact it is the foundation of all meaning experienced by creation, but nobody can empirically verify it.



I think I see what you mean, but I have to say that it won't convince a single person that the criterion is unsatisfactory.


----------



## Berit (Mar 15, 2009)

Verificationism: if something cannot be empirically verified it is without cognitive content. 

"Verficationism" is something that cannot be empirically verified therefore it is without cognitive content.


----------



## steven-nemes (Mar 15, 2009)

Mmm, interesting. Perhaps I can even use statements like "2+2=4" against it; although someone might actually deny that _2+2=4_ is actually true, it is still nonetheless convincing to some people.

Thanks!


----------



## Berit (Mar 15, 2009)

A response might be that 2+2=4 is somehow tautological. Tautologies are allowed by verficationsists.


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger (Mar 15, 2009)

It is a type of Evidentialism combined with Presuppositionalism. Francis Schaeffer fought for the union of the two, influenced by EJ Carnell, and seen in his "Review of a Review" against a Dr. Buzzweld. In _Truth with Love: The Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer_ Bryan Follis summarized it as Christianity presented as a hypothesis that can be verified or refuted. Schaeffer enjoyed taking moments of personal life and showed how they only made sense within a Christian worldview. This was the idea of "taking the roof off." Something akin to presuppositionalism's "removing the mask of unbelief." 

Schaeffer was not concerned with the academic debate, instead he understood himself to be an evangelist. His sole concern was to "win souls" and to disciple them.


----------



## steven-nemes (Mar 15, 2009)

I see. What is an example of a clearly meaningful statement that would convince a person to abandon the verifiability criterion of meaning?

-----Added 3/15/2009 at 10:31:51 EST-----



Robbie Schmidtberger said:


> It is a type of Evidentialism combined with Presuppositionalism. Francis Schaeffer fought for the union of the two, influenced by EJ Carnell, and seen in his "Review of a Review" against a Dr. Buzzweld. In _Truth with Love: The Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer_ Bryan Follis summarized it as Christianity presented as a hypothesis that can be verified or refuted. Schaeffer enjoyed taking moments of personal life and showed how they only made sense within a Christian worldview. This was the idea of "taking the roof off." Something akin to presuppositionalism's "removing the mask of unbelief."
> 
> Schaeffer was not concerned with the academic debate, instead he understood himself to be an evangelist. His sole concern was to "win souls" and to disciple them.



I am referring to verificationism like the verifiability criterion of meaning, not a sort of apologetic method.


----------



## Berit (Mar 15, 2009)

Well I put in post that Vericationism is self refuting

"Vefircationism" cannot be empirically verified, therefore if you hold you verificationism you hold to something without cognitive content, something worthless.


----------



## steven-nemes (Mar 15, 2009)

True, but there has to also be some other sort of statements, other than theological ones dealing with God, that are also clearly meaningful and convincing for the average person. What might qualify?

I am thinking perhaps "Love is more than just physical attraction to another person" or something of that sort; however, I seem to have run into a problem. The verificationist can simply reply that what we mean by "love" and "lust" is simply a complex pattern of behavior and chemical reactions inside a physical body, and that one is contained in the other, but is not the same as the other. So it seems that statement doesn't work.

Maybe: "Complex organisms arise over time from less complex organisms by way of random mutations in the genetic code"; is there some way to verify that?


----------



## Berit (Mar 15, 2009)

Well I tend to think the verificationist has problems with historical and memory statements.

So yeah I would say your suggestion is good


----------



## steven-nemes (Mar 15, 2009)

Let's see:

"I remember being slimmer in the days of my youth."

How might a verificationist reply to that?


----------



## Berit (Mar 15, 2009)

I really do not know, perhaps they might suggest that it could have been empirically verified.


----------



## BrianLanier (Mar 22, 2009)

Who are you encountering that is an actual verificationist??? I thought they were an extinct species. Seriously, I wouldn't worry about anyone who is convinced of verificationism, as it would be a strong indication that they have no idea what they are talking about.


----------

