The Verification Principle is Sound

Thanks, Ajab!. I will present my case.THE RESOLUTIONPro has the sole BOP (per rule 7) to uphold the resolution. This means that Ajab must show that the verification principle (VP) is indeed sound. If I can tie the arguments, show any logical flaw, or (notice it's "or," not "and") illustrate that there are cognitively meaningful sentences that are unverifiable, I have won the debate.It is also important to clarify that I only need to critique the VP, I do not need to offer any kind of alternative to it, in order to win. So, to summarize, Ajab's burden in this debate is to show that the VP is 100% free of error or fallacy, and I have no complimentary burden to defend any alternative to it. With these points in mind, we can proceed to the bulk of my argument.ARGUMENTSContention One: The verification principle is self-contradictory, and thus illogicalRecall from the definition of the principle that was provided in round one, that the principle asserts "all cognitively meaningful claims are testable." Clearly, the principle itself has cognitive meaning in that we can understand the principle on a cognitive level. In fact, the principle itself is a fact-claim; it is asserting a claim with truth-value (that can be true or untrue). Yet, the claim is not testable. It is neither true by definition (analytically) or empirically verifiable; so, in a sense, the principle refutes itself.Contention Two: Empirical VerificationA. The Problem of InductionThe VP relies on two methods of verification to affirm the meaning of a sentence. I will show that empirical testing falls prey to the problem of induction, rendering it illogical."The original problem of induction...concerns the support or justification of inductive methods; methods that predict or infer...Such methods are clearly essential in scientific reasoning as well as in the conduct of our everyday affairs. The problem is how to support or justify them and it leads to a dilemma: the principle cannot be proved deductively, for it is contingent, and only necessary truths can be proved deductively. Nor can it be supported inductively--by arguing that it has always or usually been reliable in the past--for that would beg the question by assuming just what is to be proved." [1]To illustrate this problem, we can look at the example of the sun rise. I know that the sun will rise tomorrow. Why do I know that? Because it rose yesterday, and the day before that. The question becomes: why will the pattern of the sun rising continue tomorrow? The answer is: because the pattern is that the sun always rises. The pattern becomes self-referential and circular, but it cannot justify itself on its own, since something could always disrupt the pattern (e.g. a supernova). So, inductive reasoning is alway question-begging, and thus logically fallacious. [2] "[I]t requires inductive reasoning to arrive at the premises for the principle of inductive reasoning, and therefore the justification for inductive reasoning is a circular argument." [3]B. Unreliability of the SensesThe senses are notoriously unreliable. Eyewitnesses, for instance, are extremely unreliable due to stress, reconstructive memory issues, weapon-focus, and more. [4] Other experiments point out how easily our senses can be fooled, e.g. one well known psychology experiment where one person asks you questions, and is then surreptitiously replaced with another examiner. Most people don't notice the switch. [5]C. The New Problem of InductionSuppose we discover two new colors of crystals: Grue and Bleen. Grue crystals are: "all green crystals mined before the year 3000 and all blue crystals mined thereafter." Bleen is the direct opposite of Grue. In addition to these two colors, we still have all of our normal colors such as green and red and so forth. Now, let's construct two fact-claims using our inductive logic about the a particular crystal mine:P1. All crystals mined there are greenP2. The past will be like the futureC1. All crystals from the mine will continue to be green after year 3000AndP1. All crystals mined there are grueP2. The past will be like the futureC1. All crystals from the mine will continue to be grue after year 3000These two syllogisms (while not formally valid), illustrate two equally, inductively logical claims. However, these claims conflict. If you buy the first argument, all crystals will be green after year 3000, yet if you buy the second argument, all crystals will be blue ("grue") after year 3,000. Thus, the two arguments cannot both be right. The impact here is that induction can easily reach logical impasses where equally inductively valid hypothesis cannot both be true. This is clearly illogical; from what we know, both arguments are "true" inductively, but one must be false.D. The Raven ParadoxIn logic, contraposition is a law that says that a statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive. So, for example, if I say "If something is a scarf, then it is cloth" then I can correctly assert it's contrapositive, which is "If something is not cloth, then it is not a scarf." The paradox is shown in this example: "All ravens are black," the contrapositive of which is "everything that is not a raven is not black." Consider, inductive logic (for example, looking at 1,000 black ravens) would lead me to conclude the first statement, but it results in logical absurdity in the second. In other words, inductive logic results in claims that violate laws of logic.Contention Three: Cognitive MeaningWhat has cognitive meaning, and, generally speaking, what does it mean for a sentence to have cognitive meaning? A plain text reading of the definition for the VP would suggest that any sentence has cognitive meaning if we can make mental sense of it. Love, for example, has emotive meaning, but it isn't something we can rationalize or neatly understand in our heads, so it appears to lack cognitive meaning. On the other hand, the notion that 1 + 1 = 2 is something we can very easily process on a cognitive level, and so it has cognitive, but not emotive, meaning.I contend that there are unverifiable sentences that contain cognitive meaning, including opinions and commands. If I were to say, "blue is the best color in the world," this is something we can comprehend on a cognitive level. I can even create neat mental images (such as a color hierarchy with blue at the top), to process my understanding of this claim. Yet, as an abstract opinion, it is not testable. Similarly, if I were to say, "pick up the trash," I have a very clear cognitive understanding of what that sentence means, yet it is obviously not testable since it makes no claim. Both of these sentences, at face value, appear to be cognitively meaningful, yet both are unverifiable.Contention Four: Radical Confirmation HolismRadical confirmation holism holds "that no theory of any type can be tested in isolation but only when embedded in a background of other hypotheses...Quine thought that this background involved not only such hypotheses but also our whole web-of-belief, which, among other things, includes our mathematical and logical theories and our scientific theories." For instance, my belief that the Earth Orbits the Sun relies on the validity of an entire scientific system, and impacts many other beliefs that I have. I cannot test this single belief without, by consequence, jeopardizing the validity of my entire web. Verificationism contends that single, isolated sentences are testable. If Radical confirmation holism is accurate, this is an impossible task, since testing any once sentence tests every testable sentence we've ever made.Contention Five: Analytic Verification"By definition; 'bachelor,' for example, is defined as 'unmarried man.' But how do we find that 'bachelor' is defined as 'unmarried man'?...Are we to appeal to the nearest dictionary, and accept the lexicographer's formulation as law? Clearly this would be to put the cart before the horse...Certainly the "definition" which is the lexicographer's report of an observed synonymy cannot be taken as the ground of the synonymy." [6]Thus, we cannot use analytic verification to confirm that "bachelors are unmarried men" from the statement, "unmarried men are unmarried." Truths of definition rely on circularity in their relationships.SOURCESCited1 - http://plato.stanford.edu...2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...4 - http://www.simplypsychology.org...5 - See video. http://www.youtube.com...6 - http://www.ditext.com...Consulteda - http://en.wikipedia.org...b - http://en.wikipedia.org...c - http://en.wikipedia.org...d - http://en.wikipedia.org...Thus I affirm. Thanks! Over to Pro...