LOGICAL POSITIVISM EXPLAINED
THE DOCTRINE
Logical positivism is the following doctrine:
A statement of fact is saying that something is the case, like “It is raining
now”.
We all make the mistake of thinking that a statement of fact is either true or
false but it isn't that simple. A statement can also be meaningless. It can look
meaningful and still be really nonsense. Meaningless means that the statement is
not factually significant (page 344, OCR Philosophy of Religion for AS and A2,
Matthew Taylor, Editor Jon Mayled, Routledge, Oxon, New York, 2007). The
statement may be emotionally significant but not factually significant. If the
statement cannot be shown to be correct/incorrect by evidence or it is obviously
true/false then it is meaningless.
In other words, logical positivism means that to say a statement makes sense or
has meaning is to say it can be proven or at least shown to be likely to be
true. Meaning is about what experience and evidence teaches you. So a statement
can look meaningful and not be.
The Verification Principle is that a statement is gibberish (even if it seems
to make sense verbally) when you don't know how to verify it sufficiently or
show it to be wrong.
The Logical Positivists recognised that philosophy is all about the meaning of
ideas and concepts and making the meaning clear. They used the Verification
Principle as the ultimate and foundational weapon against religious metaphysics
and theology which was guilty of making doctrines and claims which could not be
supported or verified in principle or falsified. Or in practice either! Thus the
only conclusion possible was that the religious were pretending to believe on
sensible grounds but were really just talking about ideas they wanted to believe
and imagine were true. A theological doctrine speaks of what a person wants to
believe not what they think is true.
To sum up, only a statement having a truth value - meaning you can know if it is
true or false - has meaning or is about anything. Ayer is the philosopher most
associated with propounding logical positivism. "Ayer decided that a proposition
is meaningful if it is known how to prove it true or false" (page 195,
(Philosophy of Religion for A Level, OCR Edition, Anne Jordan, Neil Lockyer and
Edwin Tate, Nelson Thornes Ltd, 1999).
THINKING ABOUT LOGICAL POSITIVISM
When I say that a statement is meaningless I mean that it is neither true nor
false because it is meant to be neither. That is to say it is not intended to be
literal. I must verify before I speak in order for what I say to have real
meaning. When I say there is a bear at my back door without evidence one way or
the other, I am talking nonsense for I cannot mean it literally. When I state
something when I can neither verify or disprove it I am just talking about
nothing. My statement is absurd for it is worded as if it is meant to be true
and it isn’t.
A statement that is meaningful to me will not be meaningful to another who
cannot verify or disprove it.
AJ Ayer who founded Logical Positivism taught that if a statement is not
verifiable then it is either meaningless or a tautology (truism). A tautology
does have meaning (page 345). Ayer never said that all unverified statements are
necessarily meaningless (page 345). A tautology is a statement like bachelors
are unmarried men which you know is true but which you cannot verify by sense
experience. You know it is true for bachelors are unmarried men and vice versa or
in other words because the definition of bachelors is unmarried men.
Ayer taught that something could be practically verifiable like when you go to
see if there is a statue down the road.
Another way something can be verifiable is if it is verifiable in principle. For
example, we can't get to Mars to see if there is life on it but it can be
verified in principle if there is life on it or not.
There is also strong verification. This is conclusive. It is like when you find
out that somebody you have been warned about really is a thief when you catch
them in the act.
There is weak verification when everybody tells you that there is a country
called Spain though you have never been there and you know they couldn't all be
lying (page 345 ibid).
If you deny that reason and sense-experience verify you finish up denying that
there are any meaningful statements at all. Even this denial would be
meaningless. But what if you say there is no contradiction in saying that the
only meaningful statement is that there are no meaningful statements when you
don't mean to include the meaningful statement you are making. Yes but you are
saying reason is rubbish and you are reasoning that there are no meaningful
statements. That is where the fatal flaw is.
There are few logical positivists today but all agree that its ideas are not hugely important but they do help. You could argue that most statements in some weak way are meaningless despite being useful. God and magical statements being the least testable would be top of the list.