Empirically Verifying the Verification Principle

I'm trying to empirically verify the verification principle. Has anybody seen it laying around anywhere? I've already looked under the bed and it isn't there.

Kudos to theprodigy2168: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsxqsbvldU0 (6:05-6:14)
His new channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ThePr0tege

1.) Quining Qualia, Daniel Dennett, Readings in Philosophy and Cognitive Science, MIT Press, 1993: http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/quinqual.htm

Category:

Education

Tags:

• positivism
• eliminativism
• Daniel Dennett
• Dennett
• p-zombie
• zombie
• BRAINS!
• Churchland
• deflationary account
• verification principle
• Rudolph Carnap
• logical positivism
• Quining Qualia
• qualia
• Auguste Comte
• metaphysics
• materialism
• philosophy
• science
• philosophy of science
• scientism

[LooksAeterna]

I don't undertand why you make such a video. Logical positivism is as dead as the deadest cat I've ever seen. No serious philosopher of science today is still a logical positivist in the original sense.

YOU keep these matierialist-religious intellectual goons of the money-fascists alive with your fight against them as if they had serious thinking on their side which they clearly don't. Hardly anyone still gives them attention. They are the intellectual gate-keepers of the money temple.

[JohananRaatz]

@LooksAeterna Well positivism seems to have spontaneously reincarnated itself in today's eliminitivists. 

[theprodigy2186]

Holy damn Sir! Your videos are getting better and better!! Keep it up! : D

[JohananRaatz]

@theprodigy2186 I've got one coming up that will blow your mind right through the ceiling. (well it won't right away -until people realize what it's actually talking about but that's a different story)

[JohananRaatz]

@theprodigy2186 I'll give you the inside scoop actually if you pm me your email. It's about 100 times cooler than what I showed you last time. (I'm not even kidding)

[BrainiacOutcast]

I haven't laughed this hard in a LONG time. Thanks :D

[tomdbeevers1]

At least that is Carnap's use of the principle.

[tomdbeevers1]

The principle of verification should be interpreted, not as a discovery of the "true" sense of meaning, but as a recommendation or appeal to the desire that allows us to pragmatically predict the world without talking about facts about the world to which we have no manner of ascribing a truth value. For example, it is undeniably pointless to say that there is a hippo in the room but is undetectable to all means of human cognition.

[claudio249347a]

You are all wrong. The principle of verification is a grammatical proposition in Wittgenstein's sense. It says that the cognitive meaning of an empirical sentence is given by the ways we verify it. That is: it is an analytical proposition, although not an obvious one like bachelors are unmarried. Nevertheless, there is a lot of analytical propositions that are not obvious, something that even Locke knew very well!!!

[iamgoddard]

... to the flames.

[iamgoddard]

Brilliant!

Calls to mind Hume's philosophical text concluding that any text not on mathematics or scientific experiments should be committed the flames.

[LaserBlowFish]

@CartesianTheist "won't be bothered to watch it anyway" .. maybe, maybe not, there is so much confusion in this world, so many disputes that revolve around mere semantics, I maintain you should always try not to add more

"being playful" .. well yes, at least he didn't use much more strident terms but still, the arguments behind the playfulness fail, I've provided evidence for this. It's not even funny to say they are "self professed p-zombies" when they think p-zombies are almost impossible.

[LaserBlowFish]

@CartesianTheist You are entirely correct, except to a layperson this video makes it look like empiricism is the problem and it also does a lot of strawmanning and unjustified ad-hominems against some modern philosophers.

[LaserBlowFish]

@CartesianTheist Right well clearly in the absence of empirical evidence people have been wrong so many times that you can't blame people for coming to that conclusion. Still this video doesn't show the real problem with Empiricism, only makes fun of it, so it doesn't really do much good. As I said at the start, this video makes the assumption that empiricism must be justified in a foundationalist manner but clearly, much of 20th century epistemology is coherentist empiricism instead.

[LaserBlowFish]

@JohananRaatz It only seems that way because there are modern epistemologies which have things in common with positivsm but at the same time have resolved the criticisms put forward against logical positivsm. For example empircism, as long as it's not Empiricism, still makes sense, it's still something desirable if at all possible although it's clearly not ALL of knowledge. When you haven't verified something there could be multiple models which are equally true.