In 1936 Alfred Jules Ayer published a book named, Language, Truth, and Logic. At the time of its publication, it was understood to be the major thesis of Logical Positivism (Macdonald). In order to understand the Verification Principle, one must first become somewhat familiar with Logical Positivism. Logical Positivism is a school of philosophic thought that combines empiricism, the idea that observational evidence is indispensable for knowledge of the world, with a version of rationalism incorporating mathematical and logico-linguistic constructs and deductions in epistemology, the study of knowledge (Log Pos).
The Verification Principle states that a statement is cognitively meaningful if and only if it is either analytic or in principle empirically verifiable (Dr. Reilly - Notes). In this sense, cognitively meaningful is defined as either true or false. Analytic is defined as either mathematical or logical, and empirically verifiable is accepted if the statement can be proven either true or false on the basis of experience. So, a verificationist is someone who adheres to the verification principle proposed by A.J. Ayer in Language, Truth and Logic (Verificationism). The great debate amongst verificationist was whether the empirical observation itself must be possible in practice or just in principle.
If the verification Principle is true it has many different implications for ethics. The Principle of Induction is rendered cognitively meaningless by the Verification Principle. The Principle of Induction states that casual relationships that have been observed in the past will continue in the same way always and everywhere (Dr. Reilly). Back in the 1950’s and 1960’s, it was very uncommon to get a divorce. Families...
... middle of paper ...
...When Hume developed his Principle of the Uniformity of Nature, he noticed that we tend to believe that things behave in a regular manner; i.e. that patterns in the behavior of objects will persist into the future, and throughout the unobserved present (David Hume).
I truly believe that one day men will be able to birth children. Although God did not give males reproductive organs to give birth whose to say that it will never happen. Man has already achieved the knowledge to perform sex change operations, which is a major step in that direction. Whether we like it or not, science is already headed in that direction. Maybe one day, with the help from mother nature the laws of nature may evolve to allow men to do so. Right now, there is no way to travel into the future to see if that will occur, however I strongly believe it is a feasible observation to make.
Hume supports his claim with two arguments. Firstly, he states that when we reflect on our thoughts, they always become simple ideas that we copied from a first-hand experience of something, thus the idea has been copie...
In this essay I will argue that the Humean problem of induction is only truly problematic when a strange, impossible definition is given to the term “reasonable”. I will begin by explaining what it is I understand Hume’s induction problem to be, and to try to flesh out the issues relevant to my case. I will then examine Max Black’s proposed solution to the problem, and show in what ways this solution is useful and why it is ultimately unconvincing. In this latter context I will invoke the work of Wesley Salmon, and then try to solve the problem that Salmon poses.
In this short paper I will examine the positions of foundationalism and coherentism, and argue that a form of weak foundationalism is the most satisfactory option as a valid theory of justification for knowledge and is therefore a viable way of avoiding any sort of vicious regress problem and skepticism.
Russell, Paul. “Hume on Free Will.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, 14 December 2007.
Male Pregnancy by Dick Teresi and Kathleen McAuliffe support that the technology and the demand for male pregnancy will be possible in the future. They specifically state that, "Someday a man will have a baby". They have written this article in an attempt to show why they believe this will one day become accepted and widely practiced. However, I disagree with Teresi and McAuliffe. I feel male pregnancy will never be freely practiced or accepted by any means.
Cause and effect is a tool used to link happenings together and create some sort of explanation. Hume lists the “three principles of connexion among ideas” to show the different ways ideas can be associated with one another (14). The principles are resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect. The focus of much of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding falls upon the third listed principle. In Section I, Hume emphasizes the need to uncover the truths about the human mind, even though the process may be strenuous and fatiguing. While the principle of cause and effect is something utilized so often, Hume claims that what we conclude through this process cannot be attributed to reason or understanding and instead must be attributed to custom of habit.
This essay will consist in an exposition and criticism of the Verification Principle, as expounded by A.J. Ayer in his book Language, Truth and Logic. Ayer, wrote this book in 1936, but also wrote a new introduction to the second edition ten years later. The latter amounted to a revision of his earlier theses on the principle.It is to both accounts that this essay shall be referring.
In order to go beyond the objects of human reason, Hume proposed that reasoning was based upon cause and effect. Causal relations help us to know things beyond our immediate vicinity. All of our knowledge is based on experience. Therefore, we need experience to come to causal relationships of the world and experience constant conjunction. Hume stated that he “shall venture to affirm, as a general proposition which admits no exception, that the knowledge of this relation is not in any instance, attained by reasonings ‘a priori’, but arises entirely from experience.” (42)
In science, Hume recognized a problem with scientific causality. He saw science as being based on inductive reasoning, which results in generalized rules or principles.
Beliefs are a condition of said knowledge. Davidson’s argument deals a lot with the concept of objective trut...
... but one about reason, that it is not this, but habit, which forms the basis of our beliefs. While it may be the case that denying an empirical fact may not result in a contradiction, Hume seems to be suggesting that it would still be irrational to do so. That abstracting from events to laws is a rational, though inductive, act seems hard to deny. Thus, at best, Hume can only show that it is experience which first provides the matter for reason.
hat for a belief to be true knowledge, it must be supported by evidence. Evidentialism also claims
In the terms of modern philosophy, a movement called logical positivism and logical syllogism had an affect on reasoning and the term inspiration. Logical positive gave rise to the
... make fewer assumptions about things and move more into a check and balance system that one sees in just about every form of government from big to small and national and local forms. There have been countless mistakes and errors made from one persons judgment or individual beliefs. People may say that there are times when things need to be justified or not. I think Hume has adequately shot down those arguments with the relations of ideas and matter of fact methods he discussed. He said what was appropriate to be further explained and those things that are obvious and would be repetitive if examined too far. This argument that Hume brings up will continue to be a controversial issue that will be up for debate in the future. If one learned anything from this paper, just read the previous/final sentence, everything in the past will not be the same as the future.
In this paper, I offer a solution to the Gettier problem by adding a fourth condition to the justified true belief analysis of knowledge. First though, a brief review. Traditionally, knowledge had been accounted for with the justified true belief analysis. To know something, three conditions had to be met: first, you had to have a belief; second, the belief had to be justified; third, this justified belief had to be true. So a justified true belief counts as knowledge. Gettier however showed this analysis to be inadequate as one can have a justified true belief that no one would want to count as knowledge.