Considering that I am talking about claims concerning phenomena of reality, could you give an example of both?
I'm also very curious as to what those "other means" are. Hopefully a detailed explanation of this follows later in this post.
I never said otherwise.
But what I'm asking about is how to assess the truth value of a claim.
It seems to me that a claim that is not subject to verification, can't be verified. And I wonder how one goes about to assess the truth value of those claims.
The claims may be correct and they may be incorrect. The question is how we can tell wheter they are correct or incorrect, if not through some logical form of testability.
How do we verify if the claim about reality actually matches reality, if we can't verify if it does?
yes, yes...
None of this is an answer to my question. I'm still hoping to get an answer later on in the post.
How can I tell if your claims are true or false if I cannot verify them? If I can not test them to see if they actually match reality?
Am I to "just believe you"?
What claims do I make that can't be verified?
And I'm still waiting on what those "other means" of verification are.
How do I tell if your claim is based in truth, if I can not verify it and test it against actual reality?
I understand that you went through a lot of trouble to write this post and talked about empiricism and how certain claims can't be empirically verified. And I agree certain claims can't be verified.
But that was not my question. My question is: how can I assess the truth value of a claim, if I can not test that claim against reality?
You spoke about "other means" in the beginning of your post.
Those "other means" are what I am asking about.
What are they?
Please just answer the question.
The proposition:
"We cannot assess the truth value of a claim unless it can be verified empirically."
Itself cannot be verified empirically.
What do you not understand about what I just said?
Upvote
0