Difference (from prior major revision)
(no other diffs)
Changed: 5c5
In the [philosophy of science]?, verificationism? (also known as [the verifiability theory of meaning]?) held that a statement must be in principle empirically verifiable in order to be meaningful. This was an essential feature of the [logical empiricism]? of the so-called [Vienna Circle]? that featured and essentially influenced such philosophers as [Moritz Schlick]?, [Rudolph Carnap]?, [Otto Neutrath]?, [Hans Reichenbach]?, Ludwig Wittgenstein, A. J. Ayer, and Karl Popper. Later, the leading theory of meaningfulness posited not verifiability but falsifiability as the criterion of meaningfulness (also known as [cognitive significance]?). In other words, in order to be meaningful at least in a strict sense, it had to be in principle possible (but it has been a vexed question how the phrase "in principle possible" should be interpreted in practice) that we might produce some data that would show (or perhaps only tend to show) the proposition to be false.
In the [philosophy of science]?, verificationism? (also known as [the verifiability theory of meaning]?) held that a statement must be in principle empirically verifiable in order to be meaningful. This was an essential feature of the [logical empiricism]? of the so-called [Vienna Circle]? that featured and essentially influenced such philosophers as [Moritz Schlick]?, [Rudolph Carnap]?, [Otto Neutrath]?, [Hans Reichenbach]?, Ludwig Wittgenstein, A. J. Ayer, and Karl Popper. Later, the leading theory of meaningfulness posited not verifiability but falsifiability as the criterion of meaningfulness (also known as [cognitive significance]?). In other words, in order to be meaningful at least in a strict sense, it had to be in principle possible (but it has been a vexed question how the phrase "in principle possible" should be interpreted in practice) that we might produce some data that would show (or perhaps only tend to show) the proposition to be false. Critics of [analytic positivism]? have pointed the inconvenient fact that this statement is not falsifiable.
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)