Criticisms to Verification and Falsification

Verification

Saying 'the meaning of a statement sis its method of verification' instantly flat on itself because that statement is not logically obvious or supported by empirical evidence. It itself cannot be verified

Ayer saw that verification did not take into account historical statements or universal scientific statements. He changed the rule to bring in a weak form. This meant that these statements would then be meaningful in principle.

John Hick used the Parable of the Celestial City to say that the idea of God is verifiable in principle.

In this, two men are travelling along a road. one believes that it leads to a Celestial City, but the other does not. He used this to say that just because you an't confirm it in the here and now, does not mean that it is not possible in the future to be true. This goes for the possible of God. The concept and idea may not be verifiable in practice (right now) but it could be verifiable in principle (in the future after we die) This concept is called a rather posh term known as eschatological verification.

Falsification

RM Hare said meaningfulness is not whether we can prove something true or false, but actually how much of an impact is has on people. He proposed the ideas of bliks. A blik has the power to affect how we see the world around us.

The blik is meaningful even if it can't be falsified.

Hare used the story of the paranoid student and the dons (professors) who he believed intended to kill him.

No matter how sane and 'unmurderous' dons the student is introduced to, he still does not change his mind.

For him, his belief that they are out to get him is meaningful. The belief is meaningful because it impacts him in a big way.

Basil Mitchell likewise shared this sort of view.

He did not agree with Flew (who said that believers don't allow anything to go against their beliefs) and said that actually, believers are always presented with problems to their faith. It is due to faith that they are able to carry on believing. It is not fair to say that the counter evidence has no effect on them. In a sense, it was rather like their faith was tested or trialled. Beliefs expressed in religious language should be regarded as meaningful.

Swinburne said that these were many times when language was used and thought to be fact, when in fact, they are not confirmable or disconfirmable. This language was considered to the correct but had no evidence to support it.

He said that just because something cannot be falsified, doe snot mean that it should automatically be dismissed as meaningless. Even if we cannot disprove something, doesn't mean it is meaningless.

He used the examples of toys in a cupboard coming to life. Even if there is no evidence to say that they do (or don't) exist, then the idea is meaningful to those who hear.