The Verification Principle is Sound

Disclaimer: This is me playing Devil's Advocate, I just really wanted to debate bsh1, since at the time we had not started a single debate together. I hope you enjoy this read. I have two requests: firstly that anyone who feels they did not "get" the debate please don't vote, only vote if you understood the debate; secondly that bluesteel and YYW abstain from voting. On The Distinctions of Knowledge Let us begin by understanding the fundamental distinctions in knowledge. In essence I defend the verification principle which deals with propositions, but these propositions express, a form of knowledge [or else they are literally incoherent]. So let us divide the forms of knowledge into two parts: that which is purely theoretical as a priori, and that which is either empirical or based off of empirical sciences as a posteriori. An example of a knowledge which seems theoretical and is in fact a posteriori is the statement: if I remove the foundation, this building will fall. Of course I have not seen with my own two eyes that this building will fall, but because this knowledge is taken from the experience of seeing similar buildings fall, it is based on experience and so is a posteriori. All propositions make claims on one or the other form of knowledge. Let us divide the nature of these claims into two forms as well. Let us call the first analytic, and this claims that the sentence is self-referential, or its expression is a tautology [obvious], or that it is self-contradictory to deny. An example may be that all bodies are extended, or that all bachelors are unmarried, or an orange is an orange. The second let us name synthetic, and these are statements that form judgements which need to be verified, and are not self-contradictory to deny, nor do they assert themselves through themselves. An example may be: that sweater is brown, or you are a nice person. It is now that we connect these two paragraphs and state that all propositions are of four fundamental types. Firstly all propositions either express a priori, or they express a posteriori. Secondly they do so either analytically or synthetically. So our four categories, and an example of this type of sentence is shown below. analytic a priori: all mathematical judgements; analytic a priori means theoretical philosophy, and all other theoretical expressions, however they are self-referential and contradictory to deny. analytic a posteriori: the oranges are oranges; all bachelors are married; expressions which deal with the physical world and are self-referential. synthetic a priori: the Soul exists, there is a Heaven; statements which cannot be verified by themselves, are not tautologies, and express purely theoretical forms of knowledge which cannot be empirically verified. [Positivists deny this]synthetic a posteriori: You're handsome, this is a nice person, water boils at 100 C; all such statements which are not self-referential, and express truths about the empirical world. Clarifications and The Burden of Proof The Verification Principle holds that all synthetic a priori statements are ultimately meaningless. Allow me to first explain what meaningless here means, it does not mean that you won't understand what the subject matter is about: by meaningless we mean that they hold no importance or value to us because they can not be verified. I am the Proposition, and I affirm the burden though bsh1 has a mountain to climb. To win this debate he must show that synthetic a priori knowledge is possible. Surely I cannot be expected to prove a negative! Te verification principle is sound, and I affirm that, and in affirming that I shall show that all 3 other propositions hold meaning, and then I can only state that synthetic a priori judgements do not hold meaning. Just as an agnostic cannot be asked to prove his position, in this matter, the burden will fall to Brian. I can only point out the lack of something, I cannot prove that the something does not exist, simply that the lack of evidence shows that it would not. So in essence I will show analytic a priori, and a posteriori and synthetic a posteriori as propositions which show meaning. For Brian to win this debate he must either prove that one of the above three categories do not hold meaning, or that synthetic a priori propositions do hold meaning. That is not laying a burden on him, that is simply the only way he can offer a refutation. The Proof of the Three Types of Propositions analytic a priori/a posteriori: These are judgements which are self-proving and so they prove themselves as a general category. The statement that "all bachelors are unmarried" is self-referential and so it is literally obvious that these two categories exist, and can be verified. Mathematical judgements can be verified through geometry, or other tests in Physics; as statements like all bodies are extended [take up space] can be verified through eyesight. It is then simple enough that these categories exist. synthetic a posteriori: It is also clear that this category exists. After all the belief that water boils at 100 C can be verified easily enough through a physical test. One can take a thermometer, and measure the tempreature at which water turns to steam. Now water boiling at 100 C is not analytic, it does not verify itself, but we can verify it by a simple enough test, and so the proposition holds cognitive meaning. I have so shown that the three types of propositions that the verification principle supports are in fact meaningful and have a truth function for other sentient beings. In Essence I hold, through this principle, that everything should at least have the potency to either be tested, or be a tautology which is self-evident. if this is not the case then the proposition does not have a truth function and is meaningless or one could say useless to us. To prove this principle wrong, Brian must give a system of philosophy where synthetic a priori judgements can be made, or he must give reasoning to show that these three types of propositions may be doubted. Brian must show why sentences like the Soul exist, or Heaven exists can be proved to be true, if he cannot present a method through which the Soul can be affirmed, or Heaven then he has lost this debate. I, again, as an epistemological agnostic here cannot be asked to prove that synthetic a priori does not exist, I can only show there is no proof that it does. I See You It is a common criticism to state that the verification principle falls on itself. Many claim that because the verification principle is a philosophy it does not verify itself and is so self contradictory. This would be true had I tried to show the verification principle through theoretical speculation. I have not done that though. You see Con can't claim that it destroys itself because I did not prove a principle, instead I showed that it can be deduced analytically. I did not present speculation in favor of verificationism. What we did was that we effectively created divisions in the field of what propositions express. Then we said we can affirm these 3, and the fourth we cannot affirm and is so meaningless. We simply proved three, and the fourth we could not, and so we remain agnostic to that. The state of mind which holds that these three are meaningful, and the fourth is not, is called verificationsism. We called this principle, which we reached purely analytically the verification principle. As we reached it through obvious deduction, and not through metaphysical speculation the "principle" which is just a description of a state of mind is analytic and so does not contradict itself. ConclusionIt is then simple enough, our stance. It is now Con's turn to either show one of the propositions that verificationsim allows is meaningless, or that synthetic a priori is meaningful. If he cannot do this, then s/he loses this debate. I thank Brian for instigating this debate, and everyone else who takes their time reading it.