Braithwaite R. B., Russell Bertrand, Waismann Friedrich. The Relevance of Psychology to Logic: A Symposium. Aristotelian Society. Verifiability · F. Waismann. In Gilbert Ryle & Antony Flew (eds.), Journal of The Principle of Lazerowitz – – Mind 46 () Friedrich Waismann. Verifiability (Part II of a symposium). Aristotelian Society, supplementary volume XIX (), pp. – – Volume

Author: Zulkir Yosar
Country: Chad
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Finance
Published (Last): 7 July 2011
Pages: 283
PDF File Size: 7.8 Mb
ePub File Size: 1.41 Mb
ISBN: 240-9-98870-395-4
Downloads: 27015
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Bataur

Difficulties of the kind raised by Hempel and Church obtain when a component of a molecular statement is superfluous as far as the verifiability of the molecular statement is concerned, that is, when the inclusion or exclusion of the component makes waixmann difference to the verifiable entailments of the molecular statement.

Harvard University Press, And Alonzo Church has shown that given any three observation statements O 1O 2 waismznn, and O 3no one of which entails either of the others, and any statement Nit is possible to construct a molecular statement from which it follows that either N or not- N is verifiable. Understanding a word, it is said, does not involve “knowing what the word stands for” or “being able to recognize what the word designates”; it involves only the ability to use the word in accordance with certain linguistic rules.

Epistemicism, Paradox, and Conditional Obligation. To eliminate components of this kind, R. Friedrich Waismann – Causality and Logical Positivism. In the case of a basic predicate it may be held that 1 an essential part of the use of the predicate is to identify a property, 2 an ability to use the predicate to identify the relevant property does not constitute knowing its use, unless the user also knows what the ability consists in, and 3 the user cannot be said to know this if it is impossible for him wasmann have any kind of experience of the property in question.

Language and Logicedited by James Tomberlin. Request removal from index. The antimetaphysical import of the verifiability principle, he may say, is apparently based on the assumption that we cannot have experiences radically different in kind from those that we now have. A formalized language is characterized by enumerating the formation and transformation rules of its syntax and the designation rules for the terms of its basic vocabulary.

For a veifiability examination of this question, it would seem that the correct approach would be to give a completely general analysis of “knowing the use of a predicate. Reprinted in Logic and Languageedited by A.



Then, copy and paste the text into your bibliography or works cited list. Consequently, in the case of such a sentence as “This is red,” there is a natural tendency to say that friedrih meaning of the sentence is given by the experience that would verify it.

For the language to be descriptive it must also have semantic rules, for example, rules that relate the use of its basic predicates to certain states of affairs in the world.

On a Recent Account of Entailment. However, Schlick’s distinction between content and form cannot save his view from the objection of solipsism; for if the meaning of every descriptive expression is to be found, in the last analysis, in private experience, then this is so not only for qualitative words but also for the relational words that are supposed to describe the form of experience.

Carnap considers four different criteria of significance — complete testability, complete confirmability, degree of testability, and degree of confirmability. Sign in Create an account. For our present purpose it is sufficient to note that it would be a contradiction to say that a language was descriptive but had no semantic rules; similarly, it would be a contradiction for someone to say that he could understand a sentence as expressing a statement although he had not been able to ascertain the semantic rules of the language in which the sentence was expressed.

But, as we have seen, if the veerifiability principle is simply a contingent statement about a certain linguistic usage, its logical status cannot justify the degree of confidence that its adherents place in it. The first of the two further criticisms of the verifiability principle is concerned with the fact that another component of the principle is the thesis that the truth conditions of a statement can be known only by reference to experience.

Find it on Scholar. Ornithology in a Cubical World: Reprinted in Logic without Metaphysics. University of Illinois Press, One reply to this objection is that a criterion that determines a certain class of statements cannot have the same logical status as the statements in question. Hempel claims for his criterion that it avoids many of the difficulties of the earlier formulations of the verifiability principle. An “empirical term” or an “observation predicate” is one that designates a property that is in principle observable, even though in fact it is never observed by anyone.


In either case, waiismann is the difficulty of explaining how these statements are related to the experiences that would verify them.

The Relevance of Psychology to Logic: Find it on Scholar. But this does not clarify what the meaning of S is, or what vefifiability is for S to be meaningful. This idea, which may be called “the truth theory of meaning,” had been employed and stated by philosophers before the discussions of the Vienna circle.

It might be argued that a congenitally blind person could be said to understand the sentence “This is red” if he were able to identify red objects in some other way, by touch, for example. Peirce, William Jamesand John Deweyis the view that the “intellectual purport” of any symbol consists entirely in the practical effects, both on our conduct and on our experiences, that would follow from “acceptance of the symbol.

If the sentences in question express statements, the use of the predicates that occur in them must be governed by semantic rules; how can these rules be known or explained to anyone else if the states of affairs which the sentences are supposed to describe are not experienceable in any way at all? He held that a statement is verifiable, and hence meaningful, if one or more observation statements can be deduced from it, perhaps in conjunction with certain additional premises, without being deducible from these other premises alone.

protocol sentences: Friedrich Waismann on the “open texture” of empirical concepts

In its later formulations it is presented simply as a criterion for determining whether a sentence is cognitively or factually meaningful. This procedure, however, presupposes a usage for “cognitively meaningful sentence,” and indeed it is sentences that are normally said to be meaningful or not.

Thus, unless a further explanation of the expression “observation predicate” is forthcoming, we have no way of distinguishing between those basic observation statements that are meaningful and those that are not. From the Publisher via CrossRef no proxy Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University’s proxy server Configure custom cerifiability use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy.