Anthony Powell

Theory- What is its justification?

There are two, seemingly-basic scientific principles that allow us to engage battle in the arena of true and false statements: verification and falsification. Both of these doctrines have their own merits in adjudicating truth. Upon first glance at these two words, it would be simple to assume that they are of different origins and have no striking similarities; however, this is incorrect. These two philosophies have an intrinsic similarity, namely empirical data. Verification theory maintains that to logically hold a statement to be true, one must prove this statement with empirical data; otherwise, it is nonsensical and contains no merit. On the other hand, falsification provides if a postulate cannot be falsified through rational, empirical observation, then said postulate has possible validity. Through this, two logical doorways emerge, in which one must decide to place more intellectual weight upon rationality, or pure sense experience. Upon further research, verificationism delves into, as well as defines, multiple branches of logical positivism. The genesis of verification, which can be found in The Vienna Circle, came forth from a group of thinkers who gathered in Vienna, Austria, claiming to be influenced by Cambridge Professor and philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein(Davies,p.23). These gentlemen set out to solve the problem of metaphysical skepticism. Their result came in the form of The verification principle two years later in 1910. The claim holds that all statements are broken down into two types. First, there are analytic statements which are grammatically correct, inherently true, and require no further research or sense experience for them to be true, i.e., all
1

dogs are canines. This is pure fact. The meaningfulness in this statement does not extend past the analysis of subject-predicate agreement for its grammatical value is inherent and not in scientific dispute. Secondly, there are statements of theory and opinion, in which the predicate is not reliant upon, indicative of, or inclusive of its subject, i.e., all women are dumb. More often than not, these types of synthetic statements follow a series of analytic statements in an attempt to infuse veracity. Of course, this is frivolous to the logic minded. This statement is presented as factual; however, it is not, and must be factually proven through sense experience or physical evidence. Dissenting philosophers argue that what should be asserted as truth in regards to analytic and synthetic distinction is unclear, and therefore indeterminate. How can it be shown that every dog in the world is a canine? What if there is an underwater dog in a far off galaxy that has yet to been discovered, displays all the properties of a canine, yet contains properties of an amphibian as well? Semantics, some say, but an argument none the less. Another potential drawback to the verification principle is its root in the English language. If the theory can only be applied to the subject predicate form, one might argue that it is not an allencompassing theory due to the complexity of the English language. Proponents of verification theory have a powerful advantage universally known by all humans, sense experience. Generally speaking, when an individual has an experience verified by their own empirical data, said experience is nigh impossible to refute through philosophical argument. This advantage alone provided an undisputed validity that precipitated the spread and popularity of the verification principle.

As the verification principle gained popularity in the early 1900 s, a different theory emerged. Anthony Flew, renowned British philosopher and atheist, brought light to a theory polar opposite to the verification principle, yet with a similarity in foundation- empirical data. Anthony Flew proposed a scientific method based on falsification and refuteability. Essentially, if an argument or observation which can be observed and verified is in contrast to the presented theory, said theory is undeniably refutable. In contrast, if no empirically evident argument or observation can be made to falsify a presented theory, said theory can therefore be valid. This new opposing approach to the verification principle created a sturdy defense for theists regarding the statement, God exists , even if theists present this statement with no intention of scientific assertion (Davies p.26). God, an empirically unverifiable, incorporeal being is intrinsically incapable of falsification and therefore can be presented as a possible truth. The foundation of this statement is robust and difficult to dispute without the assistance of complex philosophical argument. A few logical conundrums arise while utilizing the falsification principle. For example, when a pure existential statement such as, the white sedan crashed into the pole at intersection X at 4:30 pm in Plano, TX , is presented, one could verify this easily if he or she were on scene and witnessed the occurrence. However with the potential of all things fallible, the subjective view of humans, new evidence consistently discovered, and a perpetually changing, temporal world; this statement could potentially be counterfactual at some time in the future. By this logic, pure existential statements can never be fully accepted as a scientific truth; therefore, the same can be said for the certainty of all falsification statements through the same rationale. To further expand, if pure existential statements are presented without reference to space and time, the idea of falsifying said

statement would be an effort in futility as one would have to search through all of space and time to unquestionably assert a statement of falsification without dispute or cavil. By this, we can deduct that nothing can be unequivocally falsifiable, rendering the falsification theory incompatible with the properties of the world in which we live. Lastly, another argument could be made where if someone were to propose that the universe is ending in five minutes, and no empirical evidence or observation could be presented to the contrary, then through falsification theory, this must be true. Therefore if any idea can be brought into existence by postulation, then all things are possible and consequentially, nothing is possible solely based upon the absence of an empirical antithesis. Hence, the idea of the world existing becomes a paradoxical mute point, rendering the falsification theory illogical in this sense. Verificationists and falsificationsts will continually be at odds with each other as both sides of their respective arguments provide insightful and perplexing philosophical arguments. To decide which view is more realistic and impregnable to counter-arguments depends solely upon the view of the person rendering the theory. What accounts for evidence and reality is a subjective, personal decision at which one must decide on their own. The characteristics and origin of rational arguments and empirical data both are based in science; however, as human beings we reserve the right to make our own decisions and assign our levels of veracity and importance.