Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The verificationist criterion of meaning, as Ayer himself conceded, cannot itself be verified empirically and thus self-refutes by its own standard.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The criterion applies to synthetic claims about the world, not to logical or definitional claims about meaning itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Metalinguistic principles (rules about language) need not satisfy the same standards as object-language claims they govern.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Ayer revised verificationism to address this via degrees of confirmability, suggesting the objection targets only crude formulations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
The verificationist criterion claims only empirically verifiable statements are meaningful, but this criterion itself is not empirically verifiable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If a principle cannot meet its own standards, it cannot rationally be endorsed without special pleading or arbitrary exemption.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Ayer acknowledged this problem explicitly, suggesting the criterion's proponents recognized its reflexive inconsistency.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.